Preamble

The House Met at Half past Two o'Clock

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence through indisposition of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Major MILNER, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair, as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. POPPLEWELL) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as follows:

I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport Profits) (Greece) Order, 1951, and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (France) Order, 1951, be made in the form of the respective Drafts laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Pensioners

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of National Insurance what is the total amount received during the last convenient period in respect of employers' contribution for men and women drawing retirement pensions but continuing at work.

The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): It is estimated that National Insurance contributions paid only by employers amount to £4½ million, but it is impossible to say how much of this is paid in respect of pensioners actually drawing retirement pensions.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: As it is impossible for the right hon. Lady to give accurate figures would she investigate this further with a view, if possible, to waiving the contribution from employers so as to encourage them to retain older people at work?

Dr. Summerskill: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a danger there. If employers were relieved of their contribution there would be a danger that they might discriminate against the employment of young workers.

Mr. Steward: asked the Minister of National Insurance the number of non-contributory old age pensioners and retirement pensioners, aged 70 years and over, receiving regular weekly grants of assistance, either directly or as a wife dependent on her husband, at the end of each of the months June, September and December, 1949 and 1950, respectively.

Dr. Summerskill: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:


The numbers are estimated as follows:—





1949
1950


June
…
…
535,000
600,000


September
…
…
545,000
640,000


December
…
…
560,000
670,000

Mr. J. N. Browne: asked the Minister of National Insurance the number of retired pensioners in Scotland and the number in receipt of supplementary pensions.

Dr. Summerskill: There are 397,000 retirement pensioners in Scotland, of whom some 61,000 are receiving, supplementary allowances from the National Assistance Board.

Captain Duncan: Is the right hon. Lady aware that a large number of pensioners still do not like going to the Assistance Board to get supplementary pensions; and will she bear that in mind in considering the question of retirement pensions?

Dr. Summerskill: I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that, because we try to encourage people to go to the Assistance Board. My experience is that once they have been they are never reluctant to go again.

Mr. Steward: asked the Minister of National Insurance what would be the total increased cost per annum to raise the weekly amount payable to old age pensioners from 26s. to 30s. in respect of single persons, and from 42s. to 50s. for married couples.

Dr. Summerskill: The cost of such an increase in National Insurance retirement pensions would be about £40 million a year at present, rising to about £82 million in 1977.

Mr. Steward: In view of the smallness of this amount compared with the cost of other schemes, and the relief and happiness it would give to old people, would not the Minister seriously consider increasing the amounts to 30s. and 50s., respectively?

Dr. Summerskill: In spite of the hon. Gentleman's blandishments, I cannot commit myself.

Mr. Wyatt: Will the Minister bear in mind that if maximum want is to be relieved it is more important to increase the scale rates payable by the National Assistance Board than to increase the basic rate of old age pensioners?

Family Allowance Form

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: asked the Minister of National Insurance what use is made of postcard, Form FAM 7, required to be completed for renewal of a family allowance order book.

Dr. Summerskill: Primarily to obtain from the claimant a declaration regarding the facts on which title to an allowance rests.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Will the right hon. Lady discontinue the use of the postcards, which cause a great deal of trouble and use a lot of paper?

Dr. Summerskill: It is of no use to do that. A check is applied to these application cards. Occasionally, I agree—and I know that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of a particular case—a card is missed, perhaps; but I think he will agree that it is better to miss a card in that way than to inconvenience mothers by withholding allowances.

Seasonal Workers

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many seasonal

workers are registered in Herefordshire; how many have applied for unemployment pay; how many claims have been refused; and what is the estimated contribution of each worker towards the unemployment fund in 12 months.

Dr. Summerskill: On 10th March there were 14 persons registered as unemployed who appeared to be seasonal workers. Ten had made claims for benefit, of which one has been disallowed. As regards the last part of the Question, I am not clear what the hon. Member has in mind; perhaps he will write to me.

Mr. Gooch: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many claims for unemployment benefit have been made by women agricultural workers in England and Wales since the National Insurance (Seasonal Workers) Regulation came into force; and how many have been allowed.

Dr. Summerskill: I regret that this information is not available, but figures relating to women agricultural workers now on the unemployed register are being obtained, and I will write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Gooch: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that we have got to play the game by these women workers, or they will not be there when they are badly wanted?

Dr. Summerskill: I think that when my hon. Friend examines the answer he will not be disappointed.

Commander Maitland: Does the right hon. Lady not realise that there are nearly 3,000 of these women in Lincolnshire, and does not that very large concentration indicate that seasonal work is a vital necessity in certain parts of England in carrying on agriculture properly?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, certainly, and every claim is carefully examined.

Elderly Persons (Employment)

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether, in order to maintain as many persons over 65 years of age in employment as possible, she proposes to make any alteration in the operation of the earnings rule.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether, in view of the manpower


shortage, she will now make it more attractive to allow old age pensioners to earn more than at present before suffering a deduction in current pension.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Members for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) and Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) on Monday last.

Assessments (Appeal)

Mr. Profumo: asked the Minister of National Insurance what progress is being made with the examination of the operation of Section 39 of the National Insurance Industrial Injuries Act, 1946; and whether she will make a statement.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member is no doubt referring to the limitation of the right of appeal against provisional assessments. Progress has been made, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement. I would remind the hon. Member that any change would require legislation.

Mr. Profumo: Can the Minister tell the House the nature of the representations which were made to her by the Trades Union Congress in respect of the present operation of this Section of the Act?

Dr. Summerskill: Representations were made along the lines the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Assistance Board Allowances

Mr. Browne: asked the Minister of National Insurance in what proportions it is estimated that the 26s. per week National Assistance Board allowance is spent on food, fuel and light, clothing, shoes and renewals and repairs thereto, household and toilet requisites, and all other expenditure, respectively.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the differing ways in which people live the Board consider that it would be useless and misleading to compile and publish a typical budget purporting to be the basis for a general scale.

Mr. Browne: Is the right hon. Lady aware that I am astonished and, indeed, alarmed to learn that, with the facilities available to her for securing this information, she does not know the answer? Will she tell the House how, if she does not

know these facts, we can possibly know whether the allowance of 26s. a week is adequate or not?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the lump sums which are given. Perhaps I might remind him of these: 132,500 lump sum grants for clothing were made during 1950; a little over 16,000 allowances containing a special addition for fuel were made last September; and in about 400,000 cases, at a cost of about £4,700,000 a year, additions to weekly allowances to meet special needs, such as extra nourishment, fuel and laundry, were made.

Mr. Browne: As the right hon. Lady mentioned clothing and fuel allowances, she must know that very many questions are being asked about the unsatisfactory nature of these all the time.

Maternity Allowance

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of National Insurance what provision is made for married women who are working to obtain the necessary information on how to apply for the maternity allowance six weeks before confinement; and if she is satisfied that adequate sources of information are available.

Dr. Summerskill: Posters are displayed and an information leaflet is available at ante-natal clinics and at food offices, as well as at all National Insurance offices. The leaflet is issued with the expectant mother's ration book. The necessary information has also been widely publicised through such means as Press releases, notes to trade unions and industrial welfare officers, and the B.B.C. I am satisfied that adequate information is available.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Mechanical Cleaning

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what proportion of coal was mechanically cleaned during 1949 and 1950 respectively; and what was the corresponding figure for 1938.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): Forty-five per cent. of the saleable output of coal was cleaned by mechanical means in 1938; 50 per cent. in 1949, and 52 per cent. in 1950.

Quality

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why instructions have been given to the local fuel overseers not to forward complaints on the quality of the coal.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: No such instructions have been given. Local fuel overseers have standing instructions to be as helpful as possible to any consumer who complains about the quality of the coal which he receives, and to ensure that he brings his complaint to the attention of the merchant who sold him the coal. This is necessary, because only the merchant can identify the coal and the pit from which it comes; a regular procedure for dealing with complaints has been agreed by the National Coal Board and the distributive trade.

Miss Ward: If complaints go forward from the fuel overseers to the right hon. Gentleman's Department, why do answers not come from his Department back to the consumer via the fuel overseer?

Mr. Noel-Baker: With respect, I think the hon. Lady has misunderstood my answer. The fuel overseers advise the consumers to take their complaints to the merchants who sold the coal. That is the only practicable plan.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is the Minister aware that coal merchants are very reluctant to make complaints because they are victimised if they do?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir. If that were true, I should certainly hear about it from the Coal Merchants' Federation.

Colonel Ropner: Is there any reason why the fuel overseer should not institute inquiries into these complaints?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That would transform him into a kind of bureaucratic inspector of the private merchant. I think it is much better to trust the merchants to carry out the procedure to which they have agreed.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what representations he has received from the Industrial Consumers' Council and the Domestic Consumers' Council on the quality of coal; and whether he will give the substance of the complaints and state what action was taken.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The Consumers' Councils have drawn attention to the quality of coal in their annual reports, in the minutes of their meetings, and in other papers which I receive. It was with their views in mind that I asked the National Coal Board a year ago to take special measures to improve the cleaning of their coal. As I have said in answer to earlier Questions, and as the distributive trade agree, those measures have succeeded in a considerable degree.

Miss Ward: Is the Minister aware that according to the last annual report only 30 complaints were made to the Domestic Consumers' Council; and does he not think it is about time that there were regional domestic consumers' councils so that the complainants can be brought nearer to the people to whom they can complain?

Mr. Noel-Baker: As I explained on the last Question, the proper course for the consumer to take is to complain to his merchant, who will then carry out the agreed procedure.

Miss Ward: Has the Domestic Consumers' Council policy been abandoned by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, certainly not. They have done very useful work.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the percentage of the 30,000,000 tons of household coal delivered to domestic consumers during the last year which was reported to be un-burnable due to dirt and deleterious matter; and what recompense is to be offered to domestic consumers in respect of the losses they have thus incurred.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: No statistics are available which would enable me to reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question. There is an established procedure for dealing with complaints about the quality of housecoal, and I have no reason to suppose that it is not working well.

Mr. Nabarro: Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding his conversations with the Coal Board, there is still considerable dissatisfaction with the quality of household coal? How long does he propose to allow this fuel fraud to continue?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will send me some specific evidence after having verified the facts. As the right hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd), who I regret is not now in his place, knows—I apologise, I think that it was another hon. Member who last week put on the Order Paper a Question in which he alleged that a Mrs. Tansley had received 1 cwt. of coal of which 35 lb. was stone and slate. I inquired of the merchant and found that in tipping out that cwt. he had seen no signs of stone or slate, and that in respect of some 10 tons which he had delivered to other people he had not received a single complaint.

Mr. Nabarro: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that I should make myself responsible for my right hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) and that this is an open invitation to the whole country to send the right hon. Gentleman "concrete examples"?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It means that the hon. Gentleman should make himself responsible for the alleged facts which he presents to the House.

Miners' Concessionary Coal

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will consult with the National Coal Board with a view to taking the necessary action to ensure that miners who receive concessionary coal as an agreed part of their emoluments shall take a quarter of it in cash instead of in kind, in view of the fact that the saving thereby would largely obviate the need for any imported coal, and thus relieve both the dollar and the shipping situation.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In many districts of the coalfields, the miners can, and do, surrender part of their concessionary coal in return for cash, and many miners voluntarily take less than the quantity to which they are entitled. But the arrangements governing the supply of concessionary coal are too various, and the issues raised too complex, for any useful result to be likely to follow from the proposal which the hon. Member has made. These arrangements, as I have explained before, have always been part of the wage agreements in the coal industry.

Mr. Gammans: Is it not a fact that if only a quarter of this coal were taken in

cash instead of in kind it would make a very large difference to this very critical situation; and does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that if this were put to the miners as a patriotic gesture they would be the very first to consider it?

Mr. Noel-Baker: This is a very difficult question. Arrangements about concessionary coal vary in almost every area. Many miners take less than their entitlement without expecting any payment; many miners put some of their coal into a pool for aged miners and the widows of miners. To try, in a precipitate way, to upset these arrangements might do much more harm than good. I think it is far better to leave it to the union and the Board to settle it.

Prices

Sir Harold Roper: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, having regard to the fact that the cost of freight included in the retail price of coal in Cornwall is 34s. a ton, he will consider reducing such freight content to such level as would be chargeable if the coal was supplied from South Wales instead of from Newcastle.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I regret that the principle proposed by the hon. Member would, in practice, be both unworkable and inequitable.

Sir H. Roper: Could the Minister tell us the amount of difference involved? Does he think it fair that the consumer in Cornwall should pay a higher price for his coal when he is prevented from getting it from a cheaper source by the creation by the Government of a monopoly of the coal industry?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Coal has always come to Cornwall from the north-east coast.

Sir H. Roper: Not from Wales?

Mr. Donglas Marshall: What was the proportion of this freight carried by sea and by rail in 1938; and what is the proportion now carried by British Railways?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I should like notice of that question.

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why coal is sold at a higher cost in the south than in the Midlands.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to his Question on uniform prices on 8th May last. If the price of coal, of comparable quality, is higher in one place than in another, it is due, in the main, to the greater costs of transport and distribution; these costs vary with the method of transport, the distance from the coalfield and other factors affecting local distribution.

Brigadier Clarke: I presume that the Minister knows that transport is nationalised. If so, will he say whether he is selling American and other imported coal at a higher price at the ports than in the Midlands, or is it the same price in both areas?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Imported coal will be sold at the same price as British coal.

Brigadier Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give old age pensioners in Portsmouth cheap coal?

Mr. James Hudson: Will my right hon. Friend advise the hon. and gallant Gentleman to study the map of England so that he can better understand where the coalfields lie?

Supplies

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will allow consumers who have not had their ration of fuel during the present shortage to make up such quota during the summer months.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: As I have explained on previous occasions, there is no ration of coal which all consumers are entitled to receive. Maximum quantities are fixed up to which householders may purchase coal, if supplies are available. I regret that it is not practicable to make good in one period deficiencies which arose in a previous period. But where hardship would otherwise arise, the local fuel overseer is empowered to authorise an extra supply.

Wing Commander Bullus: What is the position today? Are all requirements likely to be met, especially in the event of colder weather?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that merchants are now able to deliver the quantities for which they are being asked. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is not enough

coal, of course. I have always said that there is not enough coal for households, and that I hope to get more, but all cases of hardship are being met.

Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend now consider the question of coal allocations for next winter?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am considering that now.

Nigerian Coal

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why only 10,000 tons of Nigerian coal is being bought.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The National Coal Board have bought all the Nigerian coal that is available for shipment to this country during the winter months.

Mr. Keeling: Is that due to the fact that the Nigerian railways are in a state of chaos?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is due to the fact that they cannot deliver more to us than I have said. Other Nigerian coal is going to the Gold Coast and Tripolitania or other British Government Departments.

Mr. Maclay: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this coal can be carried by sea without risk of spontaneous combustion?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I believe that in the quantities we are taking, it can.

Coke (Price)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why the price of coke has been increased by 6s. 3d. per ton while that of coal has been increased by only 4s. 2d. per ton.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: An addition of 4s. 2d. a ton to the price of coal increases the costs of producing coke by not less than 6s. 3d. a ton.

Mr. Russell: Do not the gas companies make some profit out of the by-products in the manufacture of coke, and does this not offset, to some extent, the increase in price?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The main by-product is gas, the price of which is fixed mostly by long-term contracts.

Over-Deliveries

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware of the widespread over-delivering of coal by coalmen to certain consumers; how many prosecutions have taken place in the last three months; and what additional steps are being taken in this matter.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: No, Sir, I have no evidence that there has been widespread over-delivery of coal to certain consumers during recent months. During the December quarter of 1950 there were 18 prosecutions under the Coal Distribution Order of 1943; they covered 45 charges of over-delivery, of the failure to record deliveries, or of deliveries to persons who were not registered consumers.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many parts of London people are getting regular over-deliveries, simply by paying the coalman a certain amount of money? Is it not a fact that one North London coal merchant has lost £4,000 worth of stock in this manner?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is a very serious charge to make. I hope that the hon. Member will bring the evidence to me. I should be very reluctant to accept this charge against the coal industry without the evidence.

Mr. Shepherd: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the loss of £4,000 worth of coal by one merchant in London as proving that this sort of thing does not exist?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I should like to see the facts in writing before commenting upon them. The hon. Member made a charge against the miners in a debate a little while ago, but he had no evidence to support it.

Shifts

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of shifts worked per wage earner in the coal mines of Great Britain for the four weeks ended 10th March, 1951, and the four corresponding weeks of 1950.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In the four weeks which ended on 10th March the average number of shifts worked per wage-earner on colliery books averaged 5.09 per week. The corresponding figure in 1950 was 4.88.

Mr. Murray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a great improvement on anything that has been known under private enterprise?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is a very good performance, and it has meant more coal.

Mr. Shepherd: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has just stated that I made an allegation against the miners.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We have passed that point now; but there will be other opportunities for the hon. Member to raise the matter.

Mr. Shepherd: If the Minister makes an allegation against me surely I am entitled to make some reply. The right hon. Gentleman said that I made an allegation against the miners which I was unable to support. Is he not aware——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Later—

Mr. Shepherd: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I desire to raise a question on a reference made about me by the Minister of Fuel and Power earlier today. Will you please say what means are open to me now to see that there is a public withdrawal of a statement about me which was not, in fact, true, and which the Minister himself, I think, now knows was not a true statement?

Mr. Noel-Baker: As I understand it— I am speaking without the papers here, but I looked at them this morning—what happened on a previous occasion was that the hon. Member used language which was plainly intended to make the House understand that there was widespread abuse of the privilege of concessionary coal by the miners. When asked for evidence of that by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary the hon. Member replied that he could give no specific cases to support it, but that he thought it was a matter of general knowledge.

Mr. Shepherd: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is an even greater distortion of the facts? My first reference was purely interrogatory, by asking the Parliamentary Secretary if he was aware of any abuse. Secondly, I agreed to provide to the Minister—[An HON. MEMBER: "Is this a debate?"]—definite


information of abuse, provided the Minister would agree to safeguard my informant and not disclose his name. Would the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Clearly, we cannot debate a matter of this kind now. It has been ventilated, and I presume it will be inquired into. Maybe the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member may think fit to make a personal statement on some other occasion.

Mr. Shepherd: But is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the right hon. Gentleman to refuse to give an assurance to safeguard my informant, so that the matter can be investigated?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The matter having been raised, it will no doubt be taken into consideration. Clearly, it cannot be debated now.

Coke Supply, Dursley

Mr. Perkins: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the present acute shortage of coke in Dursley, Gloucestershire, which is resulting in people having to queue at the gasworks for one-and-three-quarter hours in order to get half cwt. of coke; and whether he will consider increasing the allocation to Dursley.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member as soon as I can.

Mr. Perkins: Is the Minister aware that ever since there have been gasworks in Dursley, for nearly 100 years, there has never been a shortage of coke? Is he aware that the real reason for the shortage is because his Department removed the store of coke which they were accumulating during the summer in order to release it during the winter? Is this not the fundamental cause of the trouble?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am told that the fundamental cause is that the demand has increased three-fold since coke supplies were de-restricted a year ago. While-I am awaiting fuller information, I am trying to get more coke for Dursley from Gloucester.

Accident, Knockshinnoch (Report)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement on the Report of the accident at Knockshinnoch Castle Colliery, Ayrshire.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I have given the Report most careful consideration and action has already been taken on some of its recommendations. The National Coal Board have taken steps to carry out the first four recommendations made. Research into geophysical and other methods of rapid and accurate surveying is being dealt with by the chief scientist of my Department. The development of a more resistant telephone cable for use underground is being discussed with the manufacturers.
Research and experiments with lightweight self-contained breathing apparatus have been going on for some months. The National Coal Board have procured a number of sets from the United States; they have been allocated to certain central rescue stations, so that they can be easily and quickly distributed to any part of the country where they may be required. Samples of a type of British manufacture are undergoing test.

Mr. Hughes: Is any legal action contemplated as a result of this Report?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am considering that matter in consultation with the Lord Advocate.

Mr. Tom Brown: Will my right hon. Friend's Department give active and urgent consideration to recommendation No. 11 in His Majesty's Chief Inspector's Report, which is of paramount importance in preventing a disaster of this, kind happening again?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir.

Colonel Ropner: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there ought to be an early issue of respirators even if they are not 100 per cent. perfect? Is it not better to have something rather than nothing at all?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. I have said that the Coal Board have secured a number of respirators from the United


States which have been distributed to the central rescue stations so that they can be issued when urgently required.

Miners (X-ray Scheme)

Mr. Leather: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress is being made towards introducing an annual X-ray scheme for miners.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The National Joint Pneumoconiosis Committee recently decided that an experimental scheme for the periodic X-ray examination of miners is required, before any general plan can be drawn up. The personnel, equipment and organisation of the experimental scheme are now under consideration. In the meantime, all miners who have been diagnosed as having pneumoconiosis, including many thousands who continue their work at the mines, are re-examined from time to time. Fifty thousand other miners have been examined by miniature radiography under the National Health Service.

Mr. Leather: Will the Minister bear in mind that such schemes have been tried out in other countries and are known to be practicable? Ought we not to capitalise on the other splendid work the pneumoconiosis research unit has carried out and give it top priority?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, we will certainly give it top priority as soon as it can be done without risk of failure or setback.

Dr. Hill: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Minister of Health with a view to diverting some of the mass radiography facilities to this work which is even more important than that upon which it is normally engaged?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Ministry of Health are represented on the Committee which deals with this matter. As the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) will know, there is some division of opinion among the experts on whether mass miniature radiography does detect pneumoconiosis in its early stages.

Output

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make a statement as to the likelihood of the Prime Minister's request for an extra 3,000,000 tons of coal being realised in the near future.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: From 1st January to 10th March, there have been, on the average, 11,100 fewer miners on the colliery books than there were during the same period of 1950. But the output of coal from the pits has been 1,460,000 tons greater than it was then. During the last four weeks, the average increase over last year has been a quarter of a million tons per week. If this rate of increase could be maintained until the end of April, the target of three million tons would be reached. In any case, it is already clear that everyone in the coal industry, the national and divisions board, the managers, the deputies and overmen, and the miners have made a magnificent effort to meet the nation's needs.

Mr. Murray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement he has made will give great satisfaction to the miners? When we register the three million tons, will the Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend himself consider sending a special letter of thanks to the miners?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will consider that

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY AND GAS

Publicity

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is now satisfied that the publicity activities of the electricity and gas industries are being properly co-ordinated with his own appeal for economy in the consumption of these fuels.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he gave an assurance on 1st February to the effect that previous advertising policy had been reversed, and on that very day there was a case of a consumer in Essex receiving a document advertising the hire-purchase terms of six heat consuming mechanisms from the North Thames Gas Board?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Some of the new appliances save a great deal of gas. If an old cooker is replaced by a new cooker, 40 per cent. of gas is saved, and I would be reluctant to stop that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman has given up the assurance which he gave on


1st February, that he would exercise his authority to discourage the sale on hire-purchase terms of fuel-consuming appliances?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better look it up again.

Captain Ryder: If these appliances save fuel, why is there a Purchase Tax of 66⅔ per cent. on gas water heaters?

Lord Citrine (Speech)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when he proposes to carry out his undertaking to send to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon Thames reports of Lord Citrine's speech on 5 th December.

Mr. P. Noel-Bakes: I did not send the hon. Member the transcript of Lord Citrine's words because, before I could do so, he had put down a further Question, from which I assumed that he preferred to deal with the matter in the House rather than by correspondence. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary answered that Question on my behalf, and pointed out that the extracts from the Press reports of Lord Citrine's speech which the hon. Member sent me did not bear the interpretation which the hon. Member had placed upon them in his original Question. I therefore considered that the matter was closed. But since the hon. Member still desires to have it, I am now sending him a verbatim transcript of what Lord Citrine said.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the last part of his reply, may I ask is he aware that his hon. Friend, in the Question referred to, did not deal with that matter at all? If the right hon. Gentleman has any doubt about that, will he look it up again?

Mr. Noel-Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will look up what my hon. Friend said, he will see that he said quite plainly that Lord Citrine's words did not bear the interpretation which the hon. Member puts upon them.

Consumption

Mr. Ian Winterbottom: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give an estimate of how much additional coal would be needed to raise the consumption

of power from two to six units per man-hour worked.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: to increase the total consumption of electricity in manufacturing industry from two to six units per operative hour worked, by the addition of extra supplies from the grid, would require an increase of about 40 million tons a year in the coal consumed.

Mr. Winterbottom: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is considerably above the output of the coalfields, and will he consider, in collaboration with the Governments concerned, the development of coalfields within the Commonwealth such as those at Blair Atholl, Queensland?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is proceeding.

Offices (Building Licences)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the global value of current building licences issued to the British Electricity Authority, including the regional, area and sub-area organisations of the Electricity Authority, for new offices and administrative centres; the aggregate of steel, timber, cement and bricks involved; and to what extent this building programme will now be curtailed in view of the needs of the defence programme, productive industry, and the housebuilding programme.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Figures are not readily available of the value of authorised building work at present in progress, but during 1950 and 1951 I have authorised the 14 divisions of the British Electricity Authority and the 14 area boards to proceed with 102 projects for new offices and administrative centres, and for structural alterations to existing offices and centres. The estimated cost of these projects amounted in all to £400,709. About 75 standards of softwood would be required, but as no licences are needed for steel, cement and bricks the figures of the quantities of these materials which are required are not available. These works have no priority, and will not, therefore, interfere with urgent work for the defence programme. I cannot say to what extent the defence programme may make it necessary to defer them.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the very considerable building resources which are being devoted to building these electricity


offices, will the right hon. Gentleman now consider diverting the materials to building houses for the homeless, instead of palaces for bureaucrats?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Building for the electricity industry, which is growing on an immense scale, with great new investments and rapidly expanding supplies, amounts to.02 per cent. of the building of the country.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: When the right hon. Gentleman issues his plans, is final approval given, or has the board concerned to get the necessary permits which apply to any private citizen?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I would like notice of that question.

Scottish Gas Board (Accounts)

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why the first Report and Statement of Accounts of the Scottish Gas Board dealing with the period up to 31st March, 1950, was only published on 14th March, 1951; and what steps he proposes to take to see that the Report for 1951 is published timeously.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Under the Act of 1948, the reports of the Gas Council and of all the area boards must be laid before Parliament at the same time. The boards took over the work of more than 1,000 undertakings, some of which were municipal or statutory enterprises, while others were owned by private individuals or companies. The accounting methods of these undertakings varied widely, and to secure a workable common basis for the presentation of the boards' accounts has been a long and complex task. These difficulties will not arise in future years.

Captain Duncan: Does the Minister not realise that it is very unsatisfactory for Parliament to have the Report almost a year late, that it is unsatisfactory to the taxpayers, who realise that there is a lot of money involved—about £280,000—and that it is unsatisfactory to consumers to know that they have had to pay up to 3½d. more per therm, as well as being unsatisfactory to the administrative staff who have had no increase in wages since 1945? Will he at least look into the last part of the Question?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have explained the great difficulties that arise. The Boards are fully alive to the importance of getting their reports out as soon as possible.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I hope that my right hon. Friend's Department do not make a practice of using the last word in the Question.

Captain Duncan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a jolly good Scots word?

Economy Campaign (Cost)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much money has been spent by his Department since the beginning of the fuel crisis asking the public to save fuel.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The amount is £2,000.

Brigadier Clarke: Does the Minister not realise that the money would be better spent advertising the failures of his Department?

Major Tufton Beamish: Is the Minister aware that to congratulate the housewives on not using coal which does not exist is merely adding insult to injury?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I congratulated the housewives on using less gas and electricity, which they did in a spirit of patriotism.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Has any success been achieved?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, a very considerable success, as the statistics amply prove.

Coal (Quality)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps are being taken to provide the gas industry with coal of suitable grades and qualities.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The National Coal Board and the Gas Industry work together closely in all matters affecting the supply of coal to gas works. Their cooperation is described in paragraph 180 of the first Annual Report of the Gas Council.

Mr. Nabarro: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to an earlier paragraph in the Annual Gas Report (1949–50), which states that


many millions of pounds of additional expenditure was incurred last year by the Gas Board, due to the unsuitable grades of coal which had to be used? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to protect the gas industry against the misdemeanours of the Coal Board?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The ash content of the coal supplied to gas works is a very little higher than it was before the war, but that is due to the facts of which I have already spoken, that many of the best seams of gas coal have been worked out, and that the gas industry itself takes seven million tons per annum of coal more than it did before the war, because the demand has so greatly increased.

Miss Ward: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the statement of the Deputy-Chairman of the Gas Council to be legitimate evidence of the bad quality of the coal supplied to the gas industry?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am perfectly aware of that statement, and it is fully covered by the explanation I have made.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Advance Bookings

Mr. Dodds: asked the Prime Minister if he will give details of the advance bookings for guaranteed admission to the South Bank Exhibition up to the last convenient date.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. The total number of bookings reported up to 13th March is about 710,000. Bookings for Saturdays in May and June have been very heavy.

Mr. Dodds: As the number of guaranteed admission tickets will not meet the demand, will my right hon. Friend do what he can to see that large numbers do not get into the hands of black market "spivs," as already there is evidence that they are buying up tickets to sell at greatly increased prices?

Mr. Morrison: Let us wait and see how the position develops.

Mr. Dodds: Does my right hon. Friend not think that the best corrective would be to continue the Exhibition in 1952 and make an early announcement that this is what will be done.

International Women's Day Committee

Mr. Baker White: asked the Prime Minister whether it was with his sanction and authority that the Director-General of the Festival of Britain issued a statement associating the Festival with the International Women's Day Committee.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. It was not with my sanction and authority that the Director-General of the Festival issued this particular statement, and it would not have been issued had he then been aware that this formerly non-party body had come under Communist influence.

Mr. Baker White: To avoid any mistakes of this kind in future will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the powers of the Director-General are limited, because there are a large number of such bodies seeking support from reputable people?

Mr. Morrison: I think the lesson has been learnt, and we had better keep in mind that reputable Members from both sides of the House can be led up the garden by these bodies.

Opening Ceremony (Local Authorities)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Prime Minister whether the mayors and other heads of co-operating local authorities will be invited to any of the opening ceremonies in connection with the Festival of Britain.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. Out of a total of approximately 2,600 seats in St. Paul's Cathedral for the Festival of Britain Service of Dedication on 3rd May, 580 are being allocated to heads of local authorities in the United Kingdom. Together with their ladies, they are also being invited to the South Bank Exhibition on the occasion of the visit of Their Majesties The King and Queen on 4th May.

Mr. Hynd: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that none of those places is given to the heads of any of the local authorities who have disgraced themselves in this connection by allowing political prejudice to override their duty in regard to the Festival?

Mr. Drayson: Have a closed shop.

Mr. Morrison: I am not quite sure whether we have the necessary information, but I am perfectly certain that anybody who has persistently opposed the Festival will have the graciousness not to go.

Mr. George Jeger: Will any Members of Parliament be invited to attend the opening ceremony?

Mr. Morrison: Arrangements are being made through the usual channels in order that there may be appropriate Parliamentary participation.

Festival Gardens, Ltd. (Finances)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on the finances of Festival Gardens, Ltd.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. Following my previous written answer to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on Tuesday, 6th March, the Finance Committee of the Board of Festival Gardens have carried out a further review of their rate of expenditure which, as I informed the House, was proving to be in excess of earlier estimates. This excess expenditure has now reached a more serious scale than the information supplied to me by the company when I gave the previous reply indicated. The company accordingly finds itself in a difficult financial situation, and it is only too clear that its task cannot be completed without further provision of development capital.
The company, after consultation with me, are taking certain steps to strengthen their executive arrangements, and the Government propose also to institute a thorough inquiry into the reasons for this excess expenditure. At this stage it appears that the main factors concerned have been the extraordinary loss of working time from incessant and continuing bad weather which keeps the site in an extremely muddy state; further loss of time from labour troubles; the heavy cost of special measures for overcoming these delays; the strain placed on the management in coping with these and other problems against a very tight time-table, and also the heavy increase which arises from the world-wide forcing up of prices of commodities and from increases in costs generally.
The Government therefore proposes to introduce legislation at the earliest possible date to amend the Festival of Britain (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, in order to provide legislative authority for a further loan of £1 million to the company. As legislation cannot be introduced in time to give statutory authority for the immediate advance which is necessary to enable the opening to take place on 3rd May, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, in the meantime, make additional sums available from the Treasury within this limit.
I am particularly sorry that in my reply of 6th March I should unwittingly have given the House what now proves to have been an incorrect view of the prospects of total expenditure which, on the revised figures now available, will be approximately £2½ million. On these figures the loss on operation for six months only may amount to as much as £1½ million, and this greatly adds to the financial argument in favour of continuing to operate the Gardens for a further period, during which more revenue could be put against the initial cost of development.

Mrs. Castle: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Corporation have been able to estimate the effect on their finances of the decision not to open certain parts of the Festival on Sundays?

Mr. Morrison: I am not quarrelling with the decision of the House, which it freely reached, but inevitably the decision of the House not to open on Sundays did make a material difference to the possible revenues. I am speaking from memory, but I think the difference is about £200,000?

Mr. Eden: We are all agreed about the change made by the decision of the House, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that decision was commented on by him on 6th March, when he gave us an overall estimate? He said that all this had already been allowed for. The right hon. Gentleman told us, less than a fortnight ago, that the loss would be £1,600,000. Are we to understand that the figure is now to be a whole million more?

Mr. Morrison: It is not as bad as that. It is the case that the figure is different. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman


has been perfectly courteous. I think his hon. Friends behind him might be courteous, too. It is perfectly true that the figure is materially different now from the figure that I gave to the House. I gave the House the figure in all good faith, on information supplied by the company, and I am as disappointed and as irritated as the House is about this change. That is a matter which I am taking into serious account.

Mr. Eden: I should like to try to get at the comparable figure, because it is important. I think that the figure which the right hon. Gentleman gave us on 6th March was a total loss of about £1,625,000. I think he has told us today, unless I misheard, that it will now be £2,500,000. That is a difference of almost a million pounds.

Mr. Morrison: It is less than a million.

Mr. Eden: It is nearly a million pounds.

Mr. Morrison: I quite agree that it is a material change, and I am very cross about it.

Mr. Eden: I have just one more question. It is about procedure. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt realises that it is very desirable in a case of this kind that Parliament should approve this money before anything is spent, and I was very disturbed to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it could not be done. What are his views about asking for Parliamentary approval in a case of this kind, in view of the circumstances?

Mr. Morrison: Parliamentary approval will be required, and we shall bring in a Bill at the earliest possible moment. The Treasury have powers to make advances out of the Civil Contingencies Fund, and that is proposed to be done, because the alternative would be to bring this part of the whole affair to an end. I think the House generally agrees that that would be a great pity. Let the right hon. Gentleman be under no fearsome apprehension on the point. Parliamentary approval will be obtained and we will bring in a Bill at the earliest moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRIES OF CIVIL AVIATION AND TRANSPORT

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Prime Minister whether, in the interests of economy, he will consider merging the Ministries of Civil Aviation and Transport.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. As I have emphasised in my replies to similar Questions on previous occasions, no substantial economy could, in fact, be achieved by the merging of these two Departments.

Mr. Amory: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that now that the greater part of the industries which are supervised are nationalised, and have their own boards, the effect of these big Departments on these industries, at the top, must result in very heavy overhead expenses? If he does not like this plan, has he any other proposal for reducing the burden of overheads that these industries have to carry?

The Prime Minister: I quite agree that this is a matter which, at first sight, is attractive. I was attracted to it myself, and I thought of discussing it with the Minister of Transport, but after careful examination I could not see that we should get any substantial advantage from it.

Mr. George Ward: Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the staff of these Ministries will be kept down to a minimum, and that those who understand aircraft operations, are not subordinate to those who do not?

Mr. Perkins: Does the Prime Minister now disown the document "Labour's Policy for Civil Flying," in which it is said that aviation transport would be handed over to the Ministry of Transport?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS (RE-ALLOCATION)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the re-allocation of the functions of the Lord President of the Council with particular reference to the answering of Questions.

Mr. Hollis: asked the Prime Minister what Minister is responsible to this House for the arrangements of the Festival of Britain.

The Prime Minister: My noble Friend the Lord President of the Council will continue to exercise those general responsibilities for scientific matters, which have always appertained to his office, including supervision of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the other two Research Councils. Questions in this House on such matters will be answered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. The co-ordination of policy in the field of Home Information Services will be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, but the Departmental Ministers will, of course, continue to answer to Parliament for the information policy of their own Departments, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will answer questions relating to the staffing, efficiency and methods of the Central Office of Information. Questions on major broadcasting policy should also be addressed to the Lord Privy Seal.
The co-ordination of overseas information will be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Parliamentary questions within this field should be addressed to him.
Ministerial responsibility for the Festival of Britain will be transferred to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works. The Order in Council needed for this transfer of powers under the Festival of Britain (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, is in preparation. In view, however, of the part played in this project by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Works will keep in touch with him on matters of special importance, and he will carry out, by agreement with the Minister, some of the public Festival engagements, arrangements for which have already been completed.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will give great satisfaction to many people, including hon. Members on this side, to know that the Foreign Secretary is still to be the "Lord Festival."

Air Commodore Harvey: Would not the Prime Minister avoid all these complicated changes if he went to the country and had a vote on them?

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA (LOAN APPLICATION)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he intends to accede to the request of the Prime Minister of Burma for a British Government loan to enable the Burma Government to buy a share in the Burmah Oil Company.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): I understand that the Burmese Prime Minister has informed the Burma Parliament of his desire to borrow £5 million from His Majesty's Government, with a view to participation in the oil industry in Burma jointly with the Burmah Oil Company. We have not so far received any formal request from the Burma Government for a loan for this purpose, however, and we clearly cannot reach any decision until we have received details of the Burma Government's proposals.

Mr. Erroll: Does the Minister realise that this is just an attempt to get the British Government to pay for Burmese nationalisation? Will he resist it?

Mr. Younger: I would rather not draw any inferences until I have seen the Burmese proposal.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the original project for nationalisation, over a very long period, of the Burmah Oil Company, was a model scheme of its kind, and that if this scheme could be operated it would form a very useful model for other parts of the world where difficulties are turning up? It was not a scheme for expropriation without compensation, but a very long-term scheme indeed.

Mr. Younger: I will keep my hon. Friend's comments in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA (RELIEF PROGRAMME)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what sum has been contributed by the British Government to the United Nations Relief Fund for Korea; and what information he has as to how it is to be spent.

Mr. Younger: His Majesty's Government have offered from £8 million to £10 million sterling towards a total Korean relief and reconstruction programme of 200 million dollars to 250 million dollars


and have contributed in kind for immediate relief requirements. An Agent-General for Korean relief has just been appointed, and his plans have still to be made.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the Agent-General has recently stated that there are 3,500,000 refugees in Korea? Is he further aware that South Korea is now faced with famine, and that the best relief would be to stop the war?

Mr. Younger: We all agree, of course, that the best possible relief for Korea would be if the war could be stopped. The estimate of 200 million to 250 million dollars, which is a very large sum for relief, was made before much of the recent fighting occurred. The needs of the country are no doubt correspondingly larger.

Sir Herbert Williams: What Parliamentary authority has the hon. Gentleman for the offer of £10 million?

Mr. Younger: I think that the first part of it came in the Vote on Foreign Office Grants and Services, but much of it will probably be from the forthcoming Estimates.

Sir H. Williams: But by what authority has British money been offered without Parliamentary sanction?

Mr. Younger: Sanction would, of course, be required.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Attorney-General.

Professor Savory: On a point of order. As Question No. 58 has twice had to be postponed and as we are adjourning on Thursday, would it be possible for you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, exceptionally, in view of its great importance, to allow an answer to it to be given?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot do that. The hon. Gentleman has simply been unfortunate.

Oral Answers to Questions — YORKSHIRE ELECTRICITY BOARD (BUILDING)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Sir W. SMITHERS: TO ask the Attorney-General when, in view of the fact that £40,000 was spent in excess of

licences in fitting up Scarcroft Lodge for headquarters of the Yorkshire Electricity Board, he proposes to institute legal proceedings against those concerned.

Mr. KABERRY: To ask the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the admitted contravention of building regulations, Defence Regulation 56A, by the Yorkshire Electricity Board to an amount of at least £42,000; and what action he intends to take.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): May I have your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House, to answer Questions Nos. 82 and 84?
These allegations, which concern matters involving authorisation by the Minister of Fuel and Power and not licensing by the Minister of Works, were brought to my notice by the reports of the debate on the Adjournment on 6th March and I immediately directed that inquiries should be conducted into the matter by the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to the possibility of legal proceedings being taken.
The inquiries which I have set afoot are now proceeding and their result will be reported to me in due course.

Mr. Kaberry: Do I understand that no Law Officers of the Crown were consulted before the Government gave their previous decision, in the middle of February, that proceedings should not be taken in this case? Do I also understand that all the books of the Board and all the files containing relevant data will be thoroughly examined, so that there will be no possibility of certain items, which, may amount to many tens of thousands of pounds, being put on one side on the excuse of repair and maintenance which the Minister of Fuel and Power refused to consider?

The Attorney-General: I have indicated, in my answer, when the matter was brought to my notice. For the rest, the matter will proceed as an ordinary police investigation with such investigation of books as may be appropriate.

Colonel Ropner: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman estimate how long his inquiries will take?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir, I cannot say, They may take some little time, I should imagine, in view of the nature of the case and the nature of the books to which the hon. Member for Leeds, Northwest (Mr. Kaberry) referred.

Mr. Bowles: Will not this make some difference in the business for the week? Will not the debate on this matter announced for tomorrow be sub judice?

Mr. Eden: May I ask for guidance on this? It is quite clear, as I understand it, that the Attorney-General is making these inquiries. I suppose therefore, that, technically, this can be regarded as now sub judice. Would that be so, or do these preliminary inquiries not constitute a matter which is sub judice? The right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise the significance of this in view of the debate tomorrow.

The Attorney-General: I suppose that, technically, they are not sub judice because they are not yet before the courts, but in a practical way the House may consider the position as much the same since investigations are now being made with a view to prosecution before the courts, and in the light of those investigations it might be difficult to discuss the matter with complete freedom in this House.

Mr. Eden: I am much obliged. I have consulted my hon. Friends as quickly as possible about this, and, in view of that, we should not wish to discuss the matter tomorrow. There have been exchanges through the usual channels in case that should be the position.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Gunter.

Sir W. Smithers: I believe that you indicated that you might call me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I put down one of the Questions which have just been answered by the Attorney-General.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought that that matter had really been concluded by what has been said. Nevertheless, as the hon. Member had a Question down, he may ask a supplementary.

Sir W. Smithers: To avoid any possible criticism, will the Attorney-General give an assurance—I am sure he will be able to do so—that there will be no difference

whatever in the proceedings in the case of the Yorkshire Electricity Board because it is part of a nationalised industry?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: Perhaps I might now tell the House, if it is agreeable—as it lies with the Opposition to choose the topic—that, in view of what has just been announced by the Attorney-General we shall take tomorrow, instead of the subject previously announced, the Anglo-Egyptian Financial Agreement, and discuss it until 7 p.m. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House knows that we had some preliminary discussion about it on Friday.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I had some preliminary discussion with the Opposition and disclosed to them the type of answer that my right hon. and learned Friend would give today. Perhaps for the sake of clarity I might just make this clear. In view of the statement which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), the business tomorrow will be as follows. First, we shall take the Lords Amendments to the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Bill. Their Lordships are meeting specially this afternoon so that the Amendments shall be available for us. When that has been disposed of, we shall discuss, on the Adjournment, the Egyptian matters which were the subject of Question and answer last week.

Sir H. Williams: On the Adjournment?

Mr. Ede: We shall take that on the Adjournment Motion. Thereafter, there will be a debate on the Notice of Motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition on the Select Committee to consider the constitution of Standing Committees of the House.

Sir H. Williams: If the Adjournment Motion is carried, we could not have the subsequent debate.

Mr. Ede: That was not absent from my mind, and I made another suggestion to the Opposition, but they preferred to proceed in this way.

RAILWAY ACCIDENT, DONCASTER

Mr. Gunter: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Transport if he has any statement to make on the railway accident at Doncaster on Friday last.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): On Friday, 16th March, the 10.6 a.m. express passenger train from Doncaster to King's Cross became derailed at moderate speed about 500 yards from Doncaster station. The engine and the first two coaches remained on the rails, but the third coach was forced broadside against the pier of an over-bridge and was demolished; the following seven coaches were also derailed. I regret to state that 14 passengers were killed, and 23 were injured, of whom 12 are still detained in hospital. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my deepest sympathy with the relatives of those who were killed and with those who were injured.
The rescue work was carried out with commendable promptitude and efficiency by railway staff and other local organisations, and ambulances and medical assistance were very quickly on the scene.
An Inspecting Officer of Railways, from my Department, visited the site within a few hours of the accident, and a formal inquiry is being opened by the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways on Wednesday, 21st March, at Doncaster.

Mr. Gunter: I am sure that the Minister will be aware that his remarks about the organisation of the relief work and of the local organisations will be very well received in the borough of Doncaster. It has been proved that it was an amazing feat of organisation that rescue parties were so quickly on the spot, and it reflects the greatest credit, not only on the railwaymen who acted so magnificently, but upon the local authority as well, for the assistance they rendered.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. Mikardo: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for giving me permission to make a personal statement.
In a broadcast on Friday evening last I made reference to the speech of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire

(Mr. Boothby), which was the occasion of a number of references in the House last week. In the course of my remarks I said that whereas the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, after making his speech at Banstead, was reported to have left the meeting hurriedly to return to the House, in fact he had not done so. "I do not know," I added, "whether he fell by the wayside on the way."
I am informed by the hon. Gentleman that he did in fact hurry back from the meeting to the House to vote in the Division which took place at 10 p.m. and, indeed, he is recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT as participating in that Division. He has also been good enough to inform me that, being paired from 10 p.m. onwards, he then immediately left the House. It was this latter circumstance which led me into the error which I made, and for which I now wish to tender to the hon. Gentleman my sincere apologies. He will recall that when late that night a report of the speech of the hon. Gentleman appeared on the tape, the matter was raised with Mr. Speaker as a complaint of Privilege, and there was some considerable comment from hon. Members that the hon. Gentleman was not present. Because of this I fell into the error of assuming that he had not been present at all.
It is, as many hon. Members will know, all too easy to fall into such an error when speaking from memory and, indeed, I was myself a victim of a similar misstatement and a reflection made by another hon. Gentleman opposite on Thursday night of last week. But, Sir, I am well aware of course that this explanation of the reason for an error does not condone it, and I wish to convey to the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire my deep regret that I should have said anything about him which was not true—a regret which I view all the more strongly in that, outside politics, the hon. Gentleman and I have always had, and I hope will continue to have, the friendliest personal relations.

Mr. Boothby: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing this matter up. I was naturally disturbed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when his remarks over the wireless were reported to me because they implied either that I had lied to my audience at Banstead or had subsequently


been incapable of reaching this House. So far as the rest of his statement is concerned, it is wholly accurate except in so far as he said that I told him that I immediately left the House after the Division. That I did not do. Still, I accept his apology in the spirit that it was given, and I am sure that our friendship, apart altogether from politics, will continue.

MR. SPEAKER'S ILLNESS

Mr. Ede: The House heard with extreme regret when the Mace was brought in, that, owing to indisposition, Mr. Speaker would be absent from our proceedings today. It will be for the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members that I should tell them now that, on the most emphatic medical advice, Mr. Speaker will have to send a similar message on each sitting day this week. I am sure it would be the desire of the House to express its sympathies to Mr. Speaker in his illness and to give him wholeheartedly its best wishes for his speedy recovery.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Churchill: I am very ready to associate myself with the remarks made by the Leader of the House. It is a matter of great regret to us all that the Speaker should be incapacitated and we all wish him a speedy recovery of his health.

Mr. Clement Davies: I am sure every hon. Member of this House is deeply distressed to hear of the illness of Mr. Speaker. We wish to assure him, Sir, and his gracious and devoted wife, of our sincere sympathy. We hope for his complete recovery and his speedy return to this House and to that Chair which he has so honourably occupied.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am sure the whole House would wish to be associated with the sentiments which have been expressed, and which I shall see are duly conveyed to Mr. Speaker and to Mrs. Clifton Brown.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I regret once more to have to invite the attention of the Chair to a matter which may raise a question of Privilege. I have here a letter with a document attached to it, but I shall read the relevant parts only to the House:
The heading is: "Clan-Briton." It is addressed from:
Secretarial Offices: 220, Ellerdine Road, Hounslow, Middlesex. General Secretary: L. M. Tomlinson, M.C.
And on the other side from the
County Branch Office: North West Area Office, 6, Riversleigh Avenue, Lytham, Lancs.
It is addressed to the Rev. Fielding Clarke, the Vicar of Crockham Hill, Edenbridge, Kent. The letter is dated 14th March, 1951, and reads as follows:

"SIR,

I note with the most intense interest that you chose Mr. Sydney Silverman, M.P., to raise the question of privilege in the House of Commons, and wonder what particular qualification that distinguished politician has to cause him to be elected as the spokesman for a professional Minister of the Christian Church, indeed, the English Church. When you made your choice of advocate, you would without the slightest doubt be aware that Mr. Silverman is: —"

This next sentence is typewritten in capitals—

"Not a Christian, not a Briton, and certainly not a patriotic British subject interested in the Church of England, nor its ministers.

"You apparently considered that Mr. Silverman possessed qualities superior to those other eminent Sons of Britain, Messrs. Shin-well, Strauss, Mikardo, Stross, Zilliacus, etc., etc., who have all, of course? fought at all times with gallantry and valour on the side of this Christian Britain of ours but at the same time avoided getting on to any field of battle in the cause to which they should be so devoted, the cause of the Land which has given them sanctuary and protection from those who would oppress them. You are certainly deserving of great praise for your lack of prejudice regarding the creed and breed of your protector.

Yours in wonderment"—

signed, and also typewritten underneath—

"L. N. TOMLINSON

Copies to:
Mr. S. Silverman, M.P.
Mr. J. Rodgers, M.P.
The Editor, The 'Daily Dispatch '.

From the accompanying document, which has the same kind of letter heading as that which I have already read, and


with which, therefore, I need not trouble the House a second time, I have to extract one paragraph which, obviously, must be read with the body of the letter:
Today our public life is impregnated with the breeders of greed, jealousy, corruption and self glorification, who are too often non-Christians, of alien blood, interested only very superficially indeed in the well being of Britain and Britons. Their loyalties are to themselves alone and the parasite occupations which find them wealth at the expense of the British people who gave them sanctuary.

Letter and document handed in.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member has read all the passages complained of, and in that event I shall not direct the Clerk to read them again.

Mr. Silverman: I therefore ask you, Sir, to rule whether a prima facie case of breach of Privilege is disclosed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In my opinion, the letter complained of constitutes a prima facie case of breach of Privilege, which calls for the immediate interposition of the House. If, therefore, the hon. Member desires to move a Motion I am prepared to receive it.

Mr. Silverman: In view of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I desire formally to move without comment, "That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges."

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

CIVIL AVIATION

3.55 p.m.

Mr. George Ward: It is now over eight months since we had a general debate in the House on Civil Aviation, and even then it was for only half a day. I have no doubt, therefore, that hon. Members on both sides will welcome this opportunity of discussing a subject which affects those many hundreds of men and women who derive their livelihood from the manufacture or operation of aircraft, which affects all those long-suffering taxpayers who have to meet the cost of the Corporations' losses, and which affects also that large section of the public which uses the air as a means of travel.
We have not even discussed the accounts of the two Corporations for the year ending March, 1950, which were published last autumn, and I do not think that we should allow a year to go by without providing an opportunity for full discussion of these accounts in the House. I should have thought it was the responsibility and the duty of the Government to provide such an opportunity, but they have shown themselves unwilling to do so and it is doubtful whether these accounts would ever be discussed at all but for the fact that the Opposition have set aside year by year for the discussion of these accounts, one of the days allotted to them.
Besides the accounts, there are many other important aspects of civil aviation to be discussed, not the least of which is the position of the independent operators. I admit that this matter was raised by Lord Swinton—again, it will be noticed, by the Opposition—in another place at the end of last year, but the importance of the issues which he raised at that time, and the highly unsatisfactory answers which he received from the Minister of Civil Aviation, increases rather than diminishes the necessity for a similar debate in this House. It emphasises also the duty of hon. Members to insist on a full and up-to-date statement from the Parliamentary Secretary clarifying the


attitude of the Government towards the charter companies and also towards the private flyer.
Finally, there is the whole field of equipment, both in the air and on the ground. This has been made particularly topical by the recent announcements concerning the Brabazon and the Princess flying boat and by the publication of the Report of Lord Brabazon's Committee which examined the operation of aircraft in bad weather conditions. This field of equipment I leave entirely to my hon. Friends, many of whom have specialist knowledge and experience, and in particular to my right hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd), who, I understand, wishes to speak later and who probably knows more about fog dispersal equipment than anybody in the House.
I begin with the Corporations' accounts. I do not want to go into too great detail, but there are one or two points, and one or two general criticisms and suggestions, which I wish to make. Before doing so, however, I think it only fair to give praise where praise is due. Whatever one may say about the administration or the economics of the two State-owned Corporations, there is no doubt that their standards of skill and safety in the air are unrivalled by any of their competitors and are well worthy of the proud traditions of this country, whether on land or sea, or in the air. It would be a very great pity indeed if anything were said in this House which could be construed as reflecting in any way on the excellence of this standard.
Secondly, I think a study of the Corporations' accounts for the year ending March, 1950, leaves one in no doubt that both Corporations have made real efforts to effect economies and increase their efficiency. Certainly it is a matter for congratulation that B.E.A. started their economy drive by reducing the salary of their chief executive from £4,500 a year to £3,200. It is disappointing, therefore, that while B.E.A. have halved their losses as compared with the previous year, B.O.A.C.'s total deficit shows very little improvement. I agree that their operating account shows a reduction in deficit of £673,000, but this was almost entirely due to the improvement in the Eastern Division after their Yorks had been replaced by Argonauts—a satisfactory

justification for those of us who advocated the purchase of these Canadian aircraft at that time.
While it is encouraging that both airlines show a reduction in their operating costs, it would appear that there is room for still further improvement. B.O.A.C.'s operating costs were 54.4d. per capacity ton mile while those of Pan-American were only 30.7d. at the old rate of exchange, or 44.1d. at the new rate, although we know that American costs of labour are very much higher than ours. Again, Pan-American produced 19,500 capacity ton miles per employee, which was nearly three times the productivity of B.O.A.C. It would appear that B.O.A.C.'s administrative costs are still too high. General administration was 13.1 per cent. of their total costs as compared with 8.1 per cent. shown by Pan-American.
One is obliged to speak in these matters largely at second hand, but those of us who take an interest in these matters from time to time still receive reports of apparently unnecessary overstaffing at the various stations in B.O.A.C.'s network. I feel that more could be done in the way of putting out to private tender many of the services, such as catering, which are at present operated by the Corporation. There also appears to be considerable overlapping both of administration at all levels and of labour with the employees of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. For example, airports in this country have at present an airport manager and an airport commandant, both under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and a station superintendent under the airline concerned; and the handling of passengers and baggage also seems to be duplicated in many unnecessary ways.
Turning to B.E.A., a comparison of their operating costs with those of other airlines is rather more difficult and, therefore, likely to be less accurate, but Aer Lingus, KLM, Air France and Swissair all showed in 1949 lower costs per capacity ton mile than B.E.A. Of course, B.E.A.'s main handicap is the internal services. The low average flight stage of only 113 miles is bound to affect utilisation rates and send up costs; and things are made no easier for them by the absurdly high landing fees chargeable at home aerodromes. For every £100 earned by internal services in the year under review £9 was spent on landing fees in this country,
while on Continental services the figure was only £3.
Then there is the fuel tax chargeable only on the internal services. In the year under review fuel tax cost them £85,000 and this year it is estimated that the increased fuel tax will cost well over £200,000. Continental services are exempt from this tax; why should not internal services also be exempt? I do not think it over-simplification to say that if these services were made to pay it would be unnecessary to collect so much taxation from the public in order to meet their losses. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say something about that and also tell us why landing fees in this country have to be so much higher than abroad.
As regards the administration of the Corporation, I hope that the move of B.E.A. from Northolt to Heath Row will enable them to make further economies. For example, it will surely no longer be necessary for each airline to run a separate 'bus service between London and Heath Row, while, of course, when they were operating from Northolt it was necessary to duplicate that service. There should also be a reduction in administrative and other airport costs as a result of the removal.
Before leaving the Corporations there is another matter which I would like to mention. Mr. Masefield, the chief executive of B.E.A., to whom that Corporation owes so much of its increased efficiency, said in a recent lecture to the Institute of Transport that the optimum size of any airline was probably reached when that airline was able to provide 120 million capacity ton miles a year. If the airline was bigger than that, he said, its efficiency, particularly as measured in costs, would begin to decrease. According to B.O.A.C.'s accounts for the year ending March, 1950, their total of available capacity ton miles amounted to 122 million.
Ever since the amalgamation of B.O.A.C. with British South America Airlines, and even before that, I have strongly held the opinion that B.O.A.C. is too big and unwieldy ever to be really efficient. Their own network spans the world and they have in addition five subsidiary and nine associated companies. During the Second Reading of the Air

Corporations Bill in June, 1949, I ventured to put forward a suggestion that there should be an Atlantic Corporation, an Empire Corporation, and a European Corporation. I pointed out that the advantages of such an arrangement would be to make possible the concentration of very long-range aircraft in one Corporation, fairly long and medium-range aircraft in another and short-range aircraft in a third. We on this side of the House have always maintained that no State monopoly deprived of the fresh invigorating air of even a limited amount of competition could ever be as efficient as we would wish. But while these monopolies exist they can at least be kept, and in my submission should be kept, to a size at which they are most likely to achieve the maximum efficiency. I venture once again to commend that thought to His Majesty's Government.
I now turn to the independent operators, and here we find a very serious situation indeed. The Civil Aviation Act, 1946 reserved to the State Corporations a monopoly of all scheduled journeys between two places of which one at least is in the United Kingdom: but it also allowed the Corporations to engage in charter operations. In other words, except for scheduled journeys, charter work would be free for all. Naturally two important questions at once arose. The first was, what exactly was a scheduled journey? The second was, would the Corporations not be in a position to compete unfairly with the charter companies by using the resources of the State to the disadvantage of the independent operators?
The first point was met by defining in the Act a regular scheduled journey, thus by implication leaving all other services open to private operators. With the permission of the House, I should like to read that definition in the Act. It is stated, in Section 23 (2):
In this Act the expression 'Scheduled journey' means one of a series of journeys which are undertaken between the same two places and which together amount to a systematic service operated in such a manner that the benefits thereof are available to members of the public from time to time seeking to take advantage of it.
I ask the House to note particularly that availability to the public is a condition for a scheduled journey; and, therefore, any journey, however repetitive, which is


not available to the public is not a scheduled journey under the Act.
If there is any doubt on this point the proper place to have it decided and to have that definition interpreted is in the courts of law. But without reference to the courts, the Minister of Civil Aviation, speaking in another place, declared that the State Corporations regard any repetitive service, whether readily available to the public or not, as their lawful entitlement, and that with his support and encouragement they would use their resources to compete for them. He went on to say that if the intention of the Act were persistently thwarted, it would create a position which the Government could not accept. I maintain, as do independent operators, that the intention of the Act is perfectly clear and is not being thwarted; and that to throw doubt upon that definition without having it decided in the courts is to put the charter companies into a hopeless position.
My second point—would the Corporations be in a position to compete unfairly?—was met during the passage of the Act by a definite assurance by the then Minister, Lord Winster, that the Corporations would not be allowed to use the resources of the State to the disadvantage of the private operator. But there is today abundant evidence that the Corporations are in fact using their subsidy and their privileged position under the Act of 1946 to try to drive the independent operators out of business.
Let me first deal with the question of the subsidy. On page 43 of the accounts of B.O.A.C. for the year ended March, 1950, the House will see that no operating overheads have been charged to "other than Scheduled Services"—that is, charter work. But how is it possible to undertake six million capacity ton miles of charter work without incurring any overhead expenses? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can explain it, but I am bound to say that it looks very much as though the overhead expenses incurred in competing in charter work against the independent operators have been charged up to the regular scheduled airlines. In that case the subsidy has been used to finance charter work and give a wholly unfair advantage to the State monopoly Corporations. I understand also that certain York aircraft have been set aside by B.O.A.C. for charter

work. As the cost of operating Yorks for passenger transport is known to be not less than 12s. 6d. per mile, it is very difficult to see how the Corporation could possibly compete against charter companies without using their subsidy.
Regarding my charge that they are using their privileged position unfairly, we have the example of the contract recently awarded to B.O.A.C. for carrying families of Service personnel to Egypt. The Corporation is carrying out that contract using Stratocruisers, which the House will recall were bought for dollars for use on the Atlantic routes. The operating costs of these very large aircraft are so high-that it would be impossible for the Corporation to have submitted the lowest tender on the same terms as the charter companies. But the point is that the independent operators are not allowed by law to advertise for fare-paying passengers for the return journey. They have to be lucky enough to find someone who will charter the whole aircraft. The Corporation can, on the other hand, under the terms of the Act, advertise for passengers-and sell tickets seat by seat to any fare-paying passengers just as though it were a regular scheduled service. That naturally gives them a tremendous advantage.
There are several other examples of preference given to B.O.A.C. by Government Departments and other public-bodies, such as the Overseas Food Corporation, although private operators have often been able to submit the lowest tenders. All this is entirely contrary to the pledges given during the passage of the Act by Lord Winster.
Then there are the associate agreements with B.E.A.C. This scheme was announced with a tremendous fanfare of trumpets-as though the Crown jewels were being bestowed by the Corporation upon the charter companies. But when it came to the point, all the five-year agreements—the only ones which made it possible economically to buy new aircraft—were in respect of those routes on which there was very little chance indeed of getting: enough traffic to make the service pay.
For the past four years, Airwork, Limited, one of our largest and most reputable private operators, have tried to get an associate agreement with the Corporation to run a service to Basle at fares well below the cost of second-class rail travel. Although B.E.A.C. do not


themselves run a regular service to Basle, and although this application offers unprecedented opportunities for travel at very cheap rates, the application of Air-Work, Limited, has been consistently turned down year after year. For several years B.O.A.C. have been passing on to foreign air lines, rather than to British independent operators, the surplus passengers or freight which they themselves could not carry on their own services. Why not give our own people a chance to carry this traffic, unless it is that the Corporations deliberately want to drive the British private operators out of business?
There are one or two examples, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will produce more. But there is no doubt whatever in my mind that the charter companies are getting a very raw deal indeed, and it is remarkable that so many of them have been able to survive. It is also very fortunate that they have, because they have a vitally important part to play in our defence arrangements. Should an emergency come, it is mainly the charter companies who will step into the gap left by the Transport Command of the R.A.F.; and if the Minister persists in his present policy of what amounts almost to the persecution of independent operators, he will be doing his best to destroy an invaluable strategic asset. Many of these points have already been raised in another place by Lord Swinton. The Minister has, therefore, had plenty of time fully to consider them, and I do not think it unfair to ask that we should receive from the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon a full and satisfactory statement covering the independent air operators.
I will touch briefly on private flying, that is, club pilots and private owners. They, too, are slowly being squeezed out of the air, as the following figures will show. In the first nine months of 1939, the Royal Aero Club issued 3,287 private pilots' licences; in 1946, the number issued was 1,688; in 1947, it was 1,763, and in 1948, 1,784. So far, it will be noted, the number has been gradually increasing since the end of the war. In the last nine months of 1949, however, only 470 were issued, and in the first six months of 1950 the figure had dropped as low as 128. There is clearly a variety of

reasons for this alarming drop in the number of private flyers, but I think it significant that the first really big drop took place in 1949; because that was the year when the Air Navigation Order, of 1949, came into force. This order really does make the lives of private flyers almost impossible by producing a mass of rules, regulations and restrictions. I beg the Minister to look at this Order again and see whether it cannot be simplified.
We were discussing Amendments to the Order one night last week when hon. Members opposite were conspicuous by their absence. I felt it was a most important Order, and I thought at that time that the Parliamentary Secretary was, in the main, sympathetic to our arguments. I am all for safety regulations, as the House well knows, but what I maintain is that if there are too many complicated rules and regulations for the pilot to remember, instead of becoming safer, flying becomes more dangerous—and in any case the whole thing becomes so difficult that people prefer to stay on the ground.
I have tried to show that, although the skill of our pilots and crews remains unchallenged, the public are still being asked to pay far too much for the privilege of having a State monopoly in the air; that they are being deprived of their freedom of choice by the policy of the Government towards independent operators, and that individual men and women are being deprived of the right to earn their living by flying in fair competition one with the other. If His Majesty's Government persist in this present policy, the great spirit which called into the air so many of our finest young men before the war will surely wither and die, and we shall be the poorer for it. But let them spread their wings if they will; let them make their way in a fair field; and then, once again, there will come to British civil aviation new hope, new vigour and new progress.

4.26 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Beswick): First, may I say how much I appreciate this opportunity of discussing at greater length the subject of civil aviation. I am grateful to the Opposition for putting down this subject for discussion. As the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) has said, it is some time since we


had a full day's debate on civil aviation, although we had a preliminary limbering up last week, during which I gather that some hon. Members opposite were rather disappointed that I did not follow them round the whole course that they mapped out in the early hours of the morning.

Surgeon Lieut-Commander Bennett: Would have mapped out.

Mr. Beswick: I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Worcester opened our discussion, and I will endeavour to follow him, both in the remarks which I now propose to make and in the remarks which, with your permission, Sir, and with the leave of the House, I shall make later, in winding up the debate.
I repudiate immediately the suggestion that the air Corporations about which the hon. Member for Worcester spoke are not subject to any competition. It seems to me that air transport is one of the industries subject at this moment to the keenest competition. I spent some part of the Parliamentary Recess last year in going round the South American continents and I was amazed at some of the cut-throat tactics employed by the competing air lines in that part of the world. It just is not true that our airline Corporations are not subject to competition; and I would suggest that against that competition they have been making considerable progress in the last 12 months.
I am in a somewhat fortunate position this afternoon compared with some of my predecessors at this Box. Hitherto they have had to confine themselves to making excuses or explanations of why financial results have not come up to expectations, whereas I am able to give a few reasons why financial results lately have exceeded the figures for which we had budgeted. I think all of us will be gracious enough, like the hon. Member for Worcester already, to draw satisfaction from this without presuming to take any credit for it.
Within about a week of my taking office, I gave an explanation of the higher than estimated deficit of B.O.A.C. by detailing the unfortunate experiences with the Tudor; the effect of devaluation; the delays with new aircraft, and the difficult trading position in South America. I also said, however, that the

Corporation—we are now dealing with the British Overseas Airways Corporation—were determined to do everything in their power to keep down costs and to increase business. I am glad to say that the efforts of all in the Corporation, from the chairman and the chief executive to everyone on the ground and in the air, had resulted in a radically changed financial picture by the end of 1950.
As the hon. Member gave some figures, possibly I might, without wearying the House, also indicate some of the available figures to bring his information a little more up to date than the accounts terminating in March of last year. The passenger miles flown by B.O.A.C. in the 12 months ending January, 1951, totalled 555 million, compared with 410 million for the previous 12 months. In the year up to January, 1951, the output per employee, in capacity ton miles, was 9,250, against 6,750, which I think was the figure which the hon. Gentleman had to quote. The number of employees has been falling steadily. In April, 1948, it was 23,600 and in January, 1951, it was 15,600. The revenue earned per employee for the year ended January, 1951, was £1,350, compared with £900 for the previous 12 months.

Mr. G. Ward: The hon. Gentleman said that the recent figure of productivity for B.O.A.C. was 9,250 capacity ton miles per employee. That is still 10,000 capacity ton miles behind Pan-American.

Mr. Beswick: I will deal later with the difficulty of comparing figures for this Corporation with those of corporations in other parts of the world. The importance of the comparison which I am making is that it shows the trend within our own Corporation. That is a fair comparison to make. The operating deficit—with which we are vitally concerned in this House—for the 12 months ending January, 1951, was just under £5 million, compared with just under £8 million for the previous 12 months. That is the over-all deficit. The operating revenue has gone up from £19 million for the year ending January, 1950, to £23 million for the year ending January, 1951.
As an indication of the effect upon the economics of this Corporation, I would point out that they now break even at a load factor, in January, 1951, of 75 per cent., compared with a load factor of 92 per cent. in January, 1950; that is


to say, if they could get all their aircraft three-quarters full, with operating costs as at January, 1951, they would break even. I did not catch the figure which the hon. Gentleman gave for operating costs per capacity ton mile, which is probably one of the most significant costs; but I give my figure for comparison, whether it compares favourably or otherwise. For B.O.A.C., in the period ending December, 1951, operating costs per capacity ton mile were 44.2d. I do not know how that compares with the figure which the hon. Gentleman gave, but I know that, compared with previous years, the figure shows a marked decline. In the year 1946–47 the figure was 70.9d. In any case, I think we can claim that the trend is a sharp one, and that it is in the right direction.
In the sister Corporation, British European Airways, progress has, if anything, been even more spectacular. I have followed the development of this Corporation with special interest, because a number of my constituents work in it and the headquarters are on my doorstep. As hon. Members know, this Corporation started with a skeleton of R.A.F. Transport Command routes after the war. They operated from an improvised military airport at Northolt, without any adequate accommodation for engineering. There was a complete absence of amenities for the staff, and a school building was the administrative headquarters.
From this austere beginning, they have built up a network of services over the entire Continent of Europe and their operational and technical progress has been outstanding. Their operational results tell the same tale of increased revenue, increased output, lower costs and lower deficits. In the year 1948–49, the output in capacity ton miles per employee per month was 307. In 1949–50 it had increased by 55 per cent. to 477. In the calendar year 1950, the improvement continued and the figure will be about 570 capacity ton miles per employee.
To get these figures in proper perspective and to make a fair comparison with B.O.A.C, it should be remembered that operating on a short-haul system is much more expensive than operating on a long-haul system. In 1946–47 the operating cost for British European Airways Corporation per capacity ton mile was 142.6d.
In 1940–50 this had been reduced to 52.5d., and for the 12 months ending December, 1950, the figure should work out at about 48d. per capacity ton mile. In 1949–50 they reduced their deficit from £2,763,000 to £1,364,000 and, judging by the results for the 12 calendar months ending in December, 1950, the figure ought to be down to the level £1 million, if not a little under, for the year ending March, 1951.
It is extremely difficult to compare the operating costs of airlines in different countries. I have taken a special interest in this subject, and I have been able to call upon one of the most experienced bodies of experts for statistics. I have gone into the figures with care, but the more one sees of airline economics and comparative statistics, the more one realises that great care must be exercised in making comparisons. All kinds of factors must be taken into account. For example, one Corporation may have contracted out a good many services, and reduced its pay roll considerably without cutting down its actual costs; but that Corporation would be able to show a lower cost per employee than another Corporation.
The hon. Gentleman said that a number of services of the two British Corporations might be contracted out to private firms. One effect of that would be to bring down the cost per employee, but that would not bring down the real operating costs. I fancy that the hon. Gentleman, who gave figures for some companies overseas, will realise that this is a matter which requires a great deal of careful attention before one draws conclusions such as he would have us draw. People who are expert on this subject have advised me that, expressed in terms of sterling, the operating costs of the two British Corporations are as low as those for any other companies in the world, and lower than the majority.
Some hon. Members may say that the deficit and the subsidies are still high, and I think that, when one accepts, as we all do, that we are still paying out a substantial amount of money in subsidies, there are a number of things to be taken into account. Although we give our subsidies very clearly and openly, easily recognised and easily criticised, it must not be taken that other countries are not subsidising their airlines to an equal, if not a greater extent, and if I am pressed


duing this debate today, I can quote some very interesting figures in that connection.
Let it suffice for this purpose today to quote some interesting figures given by Sir George Cribbett in his Sixth British Commonwealth and Empire Lecture. He pointed out that in 1929–30 Imperial Airways were subsidised to the extent of 84d. per load ton mile, while in 1949–50, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., although of course receiving a much greater amount in total because their field of operations was much wider, received a subsidy which, nevertheless, worked out at only 20d. per load ton mile; and I have no doubt that, as a result of last year's operatons, that figure will be reduced still further. I can say—not as a party point, but simply as a statement of fact—that the intense and ever-present aim of these two Corporations is that they should whittle down this figure of subsidies still further until, in a comparatively short time, they hope to be able to get rid of it altogether.
All this represents very real progress, which we must acknowledge, and I think we are entitled to ask what the reasons are. Some of them are fairly obvious. We have been able to replace a number of the old war-time or converted war-time aircraft, and the Corporations are now flying newer and fewer types of machines. That is what the hon. Member for Worcester and myself were demanding for many years—that the Corporations should reduce the number of types they had to fly. Now, they have not only newer machines but fewer types, thus reducing the costs of maintenance and so on. The administrative machine, too, is in much better shape now than it was. The accumulation of staff, which was originally intended to cope with the colossal expansion of traffic which every one of us expected would follow in' peace-time, has now been reduced, as the figures which I have given already show.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman refers to the size of the staff in relation to the expected expansion of traffic. Surely there has been quite a steady and appreciable expansion, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can get away with it by saying that the Corporations were over-staffed in the early years of nationalisation.

Mr. Beswick: I am not getting away with anything. I am stating the facts.

The fact is that, during the war years, everyone in this country and elsewhere expected a colossal expansion of air transport and the fact is that, in this country and in other countries, that expansion has not been as great as was expected. The organisation that was built up in the immediate post-war years was justified, though not by me, on the grounds that it would be required for this great expansion which it was expected would take place. That accumulation of staff has now been reduced. I think that another factor on the credit side is that the feeling of uncertainty which resulted from the expansion and subsequent contraction of staff has now been remedied, and there is a greater feeling of security today than at any previous time.
I think the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Mr. Perkins) will agree that there has been a long history in this industry of change, of inquiry, of changes in policy and of changes in direction at the top. That was the situation that was found a long way back, before I came into this House, but I claim—and I should be interested to hear if the hon. Member agrees with me—that there is today a greater degree of stability, certainty and continuity than at any other time in the history of this industry.
There is also another reason for the encouraging results which I have been able to detail. In these two British Airways Corporations, we now have a fund of experience, enthusiasm and administrative and technical ability which is equalled by few companies and possibly excelled by none. Nearly all the people are young and in the prime of their lives, and, given this security and continuity, and with all this chopping and changing about left behind us, we can expect ever-improving results.
While mentioning the importance of the human factor, I should also mention the National Joint Council for the Air Transport Industry, at whose meeting today, but for this debate, I should have been present. Through this Joint Council, it is possible for those employed in the industry, not only to discuss wages and conditions of service, but any matters affecting the efficiency of the industry, and the two Corporations are anxious to use the methods and practices of joint consultation to the utmost. Last autumn, we had a short but costly dispute in


B.O.A.C, but, in spite of that, the fact is that relations between management and men in this industry have been extremely good and, through the local joint panels, we are receiving most valuable benefits in consultation, to which I think both sides of the industry will pay tribute.
The Chairman of B.O.A.C. usually discusses with representatives of the men all the items on the agenda before the board meeting, and in B.E.A., the same spirit and intention are, if anything, carried into practice even further. No doubt a good deal of that, as the hon. Member for Worcester quite rightly said, is due to the attitude and outlook of the present chief executive of that Corporation, and I see that, in his message to the staff, Mr. Peter Masefield detailed five points that would motivate the Corporation in the forthcoming years. They were, first, a real sense of security and "fair do's"; second, good working conditions and a job worth doing; third, fair wages; fourth, full information and consultation; and fifth, good fellowship. I believe that that policy, backed up by the ability which the Corporation has in the highest degree, cannot fail to achieve good results.
Probably, I ought to end this part of my remarks, in case they may be thought to be over-optimistic, by one word of warning. All this progress and the improvements in financial results have been achieved in the teeth of higher working costs, and within the next few months, when even newer and more advanced types of aircraft are to be introduced into service, the costs of such introductions will inevitably be high and, in the short term, may affect the present favourable financial trend; but I feel that we shall all agree that the money invested in the introduction of jet turbine and jet aircraft, like the Viscount and the Comet, will not only prove a good investment for the Corporation itself but for aviation as a whole.
As the hon. Member asked me some questions about equipment and control, and on the complexity of our Navigation Order, perhaps I should also refer to another important subject for which my Department are responsible—the field of air traffic control and the facilities at airports. After all, I would remind the House we now have 7,000 out of a total

of 7,600 of the staff of the Ministry engaged in this side of the air transport business.
Scheduled traffic in the London area at the moment is almost wholly confined to London Airport and Northolt. This year, the B.E.A. will begin to use London Airport for their Ambassador services, and gradually their services will be transferred from Northolt, either to London Airport or to an alternative airport, and the transfer will be completed, probably, by the end of 1955. Meanwhile, the work of developing London Airport proceeds, and the magnitude of that work can be gathered from the amount of £8,500,000 which we have spent to date on building and civil engineering works there.
I was asked about the economies that will result from this concentration of activities. We do not propose to over-concentrate, and, in fact, in some cases there may be advantages in having separate organisations for certain services; but at the moment work is proceeding on hangars, workshops, and so on, which will enable a greater degree of concentration for the servicing and maintenance work of both Corporations. This year we shall be experimenting at London Airport with the dual system of runways, the two east-west runways. I am sorry that they are east-west, but I am quite sure that if the hon. and gallant Member for Gosport and Fareham (Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett) would care to go into this question at greater length with me, he would agree that the only possible direction for them is east-west.
This year, for a time, we shall have both runways and shall be using them simultaneously, one for the aircraft from the Ministry flight and the other for the regular services, and we hope to get a good deal of experience of modern technique and air traffic control. Perhaps I might just amplify a little what is involved in this business and what we have been doing in air-traffic control. The hon. Gentleman was complaining—I am not sure whether it was today or on another occasion—about the complexity of navigation around the skies. He had, in fact, considerable difficulty himself in navigating through the various orders on Thursday night, and I gather that he is now claiming that the private aircraft owner experiences similar difficulty in getting from one part of the London area to another.
When he said that, I was rather reminded of the complaint of Stanley Baldwin when he said that it took him longer to get from Downing Street to Oxford Circus in a motor car than it used to take him in a hansom cab. I think it quite likely that the hon. Gentleman would now take longer to get from Croydone to Bovingdon in a private aircraft than he did in the days when the only type of control available was for the pilot to wet his finger and put it out to see which way the wind was blowing.

Mr. G. Ward: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that he can now also get from Downing Street to Oxford Circus by tube?

Mr. Beswick: I hope that in this debate on aviation the hon. Gentleman is not going to put forward theories on subterranean transport.
Anyhow, I agree that it is getting a very complicated business. Nowadays, anyone looking up at the sky and thinking what a peaceful place it is and then putting on a pair of headphones would get the shock of his life. There is more talk in the ether today than there was on the Tower of Babel. The only difference is that the talk on the frequencies in the ether is disciplined. Although the volume is great, the purpose is very clear. It would be quite an experience for many hon. Members who have not had the opportunity of going up to do so in order to see how detailed, how close and how clever is the direction now given to pilots in and on the approaches to the London zone.
I announced a year ago the agreement with the Air Ministry for a national system of control, and we now have functioning satisfactorily controlled routes from the Atlantic seaboard through London, on to the Continent and down to Paris. During the next few weeks this system will be extended from Birmingham up to Prestwick, and this route pattern will be controlled by centres at London, Preston and Prestwick, and, when the Scottish section is completed, it will be possible for aircraft at any point over the British Isles, provided, of course, that they are not too high, to communicate direct with these centres by radiotelephone.
The multi-carrier system of very high frequency communication which has been

installed will provide us with the most modern air-ground telephone service in the world. Then, within the Metropolitan traffic zone itself, we now have a new traffic pattern, the first in the world to make use of the system of the short-range approach control radar. All aircraft now using London Airport in bad weather are given the fullest radar directions, which ensure not only that they land safely, but that the intervals between landing are reduced to the lowest possible minimum.
I think most people who have had experience of the matter would agree that, considering the increase of traffic in this area, the way in which delays have been reduced is most remarkable. Experience has already shown that in bad weather we can safely achieve a landing interval of the order of three to four minutes, and this interval will be progressively reduced as improved technique and equipment come into operation. We have already applied this technique to the jet aircraft Viscount, and during the course of the next few months the Comet will also be tried out in the same conditions. These inventions, the Metropolitan zone of control, the system of radio-telephone communications throughout the British Isles, together with the long-range radar unit sited at London Airport—which can keep careful watch on the movement of aircraft on the runways in the dirtiest of weather-put us, I think, in the foregound of this science of air-traffic control.
I was asked one or two other questions about the private operator. I am inclined to think it would be better if I were to wait until I am allowed to reply to the debate this evening, but I will just make one or two points. First of all, I want to say that it was never said at any time that the Corporations would not enter into non-scheduled service business.

Mr. G. Ward: It would be incidental.

Mr. Beswick: Yes, it would be incidental; it would not be their main business, and if they entered into such business they would not employ their subsidy unfairly to compete against private operators. I think that is common ground. But there are occasions, of course, when it is in the interests of the Corporation, in order to keep down its overheads, to employ in the off-season aircraft needed for seasonal traffic, and which, if not employed on non-scheduled business, would be wasted


at some periods of the year. I rather think it was such an occasion about which the hon. Gentleman was talking when he said that the Stratocruisers were going down to the Mediterranean to pick up traffic. I have no doubt that the explanation of that is that they are required for the busy season over the Atlantic and it is possible to utilise them more fully by taking on contracts of that kind for what is, I agree, charter business.

Mr. G. Ward: I am afraid that I cannot understand that argument. Although the spirit of the Act is to the contrary, as agreed by the Minister of Civil Aviation of the day, and although specific assurances were given that the Corporations would not use their subsidy to compete against independent operators and would not use their position under the Act to do so, the hon. Gentleman submits now that they are perfectly justified in doing that. The principle is either right or wrong. If it is wrong, then they should not be doing it by using their Stratocruisers as far as Egypt and then advertising seats on the way back to capture traffic from private owners.

Mr. Beswick: The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, he is trying to complain that a Corporation or a company is receiving a subsidy from the taxpayer, which is quite right; but if he wishes that liability to the taxpayer to be reduced, surely he must also agree that it is economically justifiable that they should be allowed to compete in this field.

Mr. Ward: I must make this perfectly clear. It is most important, and we on this side of the House cannot agree. It is perfectly clear that if the subsidy is to be used to compete against the private independent operators, the Corporation is going to have an unfair advantage. The hon. Gentleman says, "But you are complaining that the subsidy is necessary." Well, let the Government get rid of the subsidy in other ways, even if it means handing the whole thing over to private enterprise.

Mr. Beswick: I can see the argument the hon. Member has at the back of his mind, although I do not think it is the argument he is actually putting forward. I think that the test would be in this matter that if a particular charter opera-

tion resulted in an additional liability upon the taxpayer, then in that case I would agree that the Corporations were embarking on business contrary both to the letter and to the spirit of the Act; but if the Corporations take on a contract which has the result of reducing their subsidy, and which therefore is not utilising the subsidy to enable them to compete with other operators, then I would say that such an operation was not contrary either to the letter or to the spirit of the Act.

Air Commodore Harvey: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that every charter operation carried out by the Corporations has been carried out at a profit?

Mr. Beswick: Obviously I cannot, at this moment in this place, give an undertaking of that kind in respect of every individual case. I should have to look into them. I can give an undertaking that that is the principle behind the operations of the Corporations. If there is any particular case into which we can go in greater detail, I should be happy to examine it with any hon. Member opposite.

Sir Peter Macdonald: In the light of the arguments put forward in another place and in this House previously, and in view of the undertaking given by the Minister, does the hon. Gentleman consider that fair competition in opposition to private operators? Does the hon. Gentleman consider any transaction, such as the Middle East one which he mentioned, where the overheads are not included in the cost of operation, is fair competition with what the private operator would have to undertake?

Mr. Beswick: I do not think the hon. Member is justified in saying that the overhead costs did not enter into the cost of operating that particular charter contract. I do not think he is entitled to say that.

Sir P. Macdonald: It is not shown in the accounts.

Mr. Beswick: If it be a fact that certain overhead costs were incurred anyhow, whether an aircraft remained on the ground for a couple of months in the year or was employed on these charter operations, then I think the Corporations are entitled to go out and try to get additional business to reduce the burden of those


overheads. I should have thought that that would have been reasonable and that an undertaking of that kind would satisfy hon. Members opposite.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett rose——

Mr. Beswick: I think I have taken rather a long time, and I am anxious to hear what hon. Members have to say. I must thank them for listening so far and I will take careful note of what is said in the debate.

5.6 p.m.

Lieut-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: As the House will guess, I propose to speak about Prestwick. Just a year ago, as the House will recall, a Committee was set up by the Scottish Council, under Lord Clydesmuir, to consider the future of Prestwick Airport and, with commendable speed, their report has just lately been produced. In speaking on this subject, I should like to avoid any party bias or any party consideration, for I believe, quite frankly, that every Member of Parliament representing a constituency in Scotland is in broad agreement about the future of Prestwick.
As the House knows, the airport at Prestwick is the concrete result of the dream of two young Scots who electrified the world some 20 years ago by flying over Mount Everest. Prestwick, this lovely spot, as those who have visited it will agree it is, was a flyer's dream. It was fog-free, lying low by the sea with the hills of Ayrshire rising softly behind. It seemed idea to all those who sought a suitable site for an airport.
As, no doubt, those who have travelled in the air and used Prestwick in the course of their travels will remember, it is the nearest point from this side of the world to the North Americas. It offers every facility for keeping contact between the old world and the new and for providing a link between the East and the West. By intensive effort, by organising genius and by characteristic determination these young men made that dream of theirs come true and so we have Prestwick as we see it today, though, I admit, after a considerable sum of money had been spent on it by the Government.
Then came the war, and naturally Prestwick became a cog, though a very vital cog, in the whole machine waging that war. There were trained the few

who won so much for so many, the pilots of the Battle of Britain. There touched down the first Liberators, the advanced guard of that mighty aid that came from America. Then came 1945 and victory, and in that victory Prestwick had played a notable part. The next date of consequence was 1946, when this practical case of private enterprise co-operating in our national need was taken over by the State.
I am not going to argue or discuss the rights or wrongs of nationalisation. That has been argued out. The Government, with their huge, sledge-hammer majority, forced it through the House, in the last Parliament, against the protests of those who knew exactly to what it was going to lead—higher cost and without the efficiency that we were all led to expect. But the result was a clash between the publicly owned airport and the private enterprise company. It is a strange situation, and a very difficult one, especially if they are to work in harmony and with satisfaction to both. Certainly, it was not an easy situation for Scottish Aviation Ltd.—the private enterprise company, to which I have referred—because they were always aware, as Scotland is aware, that it was by that private enterprise company that the great publicly owned airport—that international airport as it is called—at Prestwick was built. They have every right to believe or hope that they will get the benefits which are due to the imagination and courage which initiated this venture.
There are certain psychological factors about this question, too; and they involve Scottish opinion. Scottish opinion has never been more united on any one topic than on the future of Prestwick. It has become to Scotland a symbol of their sentiment and of the part which they are to be called to play in the future development of civil aviation. They feel that two things are needed: first of all, that the promise of the Minister shall be implemented and that Prestwick will be, in fact as well as in word, an international airport.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to Prestwick as an international airport. If he cares to consult the proper authorities he will find that the promise was that the airport would be not an international but a transatlantic airport.

Sir T. Moore: No, that is not true. It was stated by the Parliamentary Secretary, in answer to a Question of mine two years ago, that Prestwick would be an international airport, that it would rank as such and would be termed as such.
That is one thing that Scotland wants. Here, I speak with great temerity, but I think I am representing the view of Scotland; they also want to make sure that this private enterprise company shall not be completely absorbed, dominated and pressed out of existence through the State having taken over its land and property. It was this conflict which developed between the policy of the Socialist Government and the policy which Scotland believed should be adopted that finally led to the Scottish Council setting up the Clydesmuir Committee. I think we should all pay a tribute to the impartiality, wisdom and sound judgment which animated the recommendations of that Committee. I think we should also pay a tribute to the statesmanlike judgment of the Minister in wholeheartedly accepting so many of its recommendations—but not all.
Now, having studied this Report, we come to a cleavage of opinion, because the issue, as far as the recommendations of the Report go, is between the future of this nationally controlled international airport and the well-being of the purely private enterprise company which is operating and living on the land leased to it by the State and on which the future of so many hundreds of skilled craftsmen depend. How can those two aims be reconciled? The Clydesmuir Report has made many admirable recommendations, and on technical grounds I do not think there is very much between Lord Clydesmuir and the Minister, except that the Minister seems to visualise his whole policy in regard to this development as a purely short-term policy, whereas Lord Clydesmuir's Committee looks ahead and visualises the immense development to which we in Scotland think Prestwick is entitled.
There is one serious feature about the Minister's acceptance of these recommendations, and that is in regard to the feeder services. As we all know, there must be feeder services in connection with an international airport; indeed, any international airport must largely depend upon adequate feeder services. This is the position.

On 16th January the Scottish Advisory Council announced that this private company, Scottish Aviation Ltd., had been authorised to operate feeder services from Prestwick to Blackpool, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Hull, Exeter and the Isle of Man. This sounded and sounds a lot, but the facts are that Exeter and the Isle of Man are purely seasonal work and the others are all inoperative for economic and technical reasons.
I could give the Minister all those reasons in detail, but I know there are many others who will be dealing with this more localised subject. There are also others who will want to deal with the broader issues involved in the debate, so I will not develop the reasons now, but if the Minister wants to know why these feeder services are useless I will give him the reasons. I concede another point to the Minister, and it is this: I understand that the Chief Executive Officer of B.E.A. and a representative of Scottish Aviation Ltd. are shortly having a meeting, which has the blessing of the Minister, to see how this rather ridiculous situation can be cleared up—for it must be cleared up if Scottish opinion is to be satisfied.
I come now to the final and almost most important point, and that is the whole administration and control of Scottish civil aviation with, of course, special reference to the theme of Prestwick. I am sorry if I hurt some personal feelings about this, but the Scottish Advisory Council has not been a success. It does not today command the confidence of the Scottish people. Too often has it misled both Scotland and, in my opinion, the Minister by giving wrong or misleading information. That being so, why not terminate it? Once a body, no matter how estimable may have been its intentions or purpose, has lost the confidence of those who have set it up and of those to whom it issues advice, the sooner it is removed or re-organised the better.
In the Clydesmuir recommendations there is a way out. They suggest—and it is a suggestion which has very often been advanced in Scotland in the last few years—that a Scottish public utilities corporation should be set up. Of course, it would be agreed that under the present Government's policy of nationalisation


this corporation would ultimately be responsible to the Minister in London. I do not say that that is good, but we are prepared to accept that fact. There is no intention—let us get this clear—of handing it back, so to speak, to purely restrictive private enterprise, but we believe, and the Clydesmuir Committee believe, that this corporation, if set up, could then be placed in complete control administratively and technically of Prestwick Airport, and as such would be able to co-ordinate its efforts and its future with the general interests of Scottish trade and industry.
My final point concerns how the productive side of Prestwick Airport—that is, the private enterprise side, Scottish Aviation, Ltd.—is to be assisted to maintain itself as a living, useful entity in our economy. The other day the Minister of Supply told me, in what I think was a slightly misleading reply, that £150,000 was to be, or had been—I did not quite gather which—allocated for this company for the reconstruction of Dakotas. That gave a totally wrong impression. So far there has been only one Dakota under reconstruction and there is a loss to the company, I understand, as a result of the specification which was required not being fully appreciated at the beginning. To talk about £150,000 worth of business, of production, being put in the way of that company is to create a wrong impression; it is just not true.
What can be done? When the matter was raised four or five years ago we were told quite definitely that the nationalisation of Prestwick Airport would not in any way interfere with the development of civil aviation, on the production side, in Scotland, and we believed that. Great visions appeared to those who represent Scottish productive aviation. Dreams were dreamed. Scotland saw Prestwick not simply as a link between the North Americas and the Scandinavian countries, not simply as a port of call or transfer for visitors from East and West; Scotland saw Prestwick, with all the facilities provided there by nature, as the centre of a great new constructive industry.
Scotland knows that the Minister has, at that place, unmatched facilities by comparison with any other airport in the country, with an eager, competent and enterprising management and with craftsmen unmatched in skill anywhere. All

these things are at the Minister's disposal and yet, day after day, week after week, and month after month we have waited for some indication from the Government that production will be stimulated in that airport. I believe that, just as formerly and today Scotland has sent out ships to conquer the seven seas, so she is capable of sending out aircraft which will conquer the air. But she must be given the opportunity. So far we have felt that design and craftsmanship and manufacture are all deliberately being diverted to England. So far we have felt that the Government have little interest in developing a productive aircraft industry in Scotland.
All our repeated calls to the Government have fallen on deaf ears. Something has gone wrong with the original conception. Someone has lost interest. We believe it is the Ministry and the Government as a whole, and I think I am right in including in that the Minister of Supply and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Minister of Civil Aviation, the Minister of Supply and the Secretary of State for Scotland must co-operate if that which has gone wrong in the past is to be put right in the future. If the Government will take this lesson to heart and will fulfil the hopes and intentions which Scotland has for this great airport, then they might—although I doubt it—recover some of the confidence in Scotland which they have at present so hopelessly lost.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I think we were all pleased to hear the progress report which the Parliamentary Secretary gave us, especially that in connection with B.E.A.C. I believe he will agree, however, that the progress has not been uniform. I thought that he might have a little trouble over Prestwick, and we have already heard some criticisms on that subject from the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore). I believe the hon. Gentleman has also been' in touch with the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, and we all know what formidable gentlemen Lords Provost are. There has been considerable dismay in Scotland over the decision to cut out this winter— I hope and believe only temporarily—the London-Edinburgh, Aberdeen; link and the connection on to Orkney and Shetland. We realise that there have


been difficulties, but that has constituted a setback to civil aviation in Scotland.
It is to the subject of B.E.A.C. and civil aviation in Scotland to which I intend to address my remarks, as the Parliamentary Secretary may not be surprised to hear. I consider that I am one of the most lucrative, if not most valuable, pieces of freight which B.E.A.C. carry, usually, I may add, at the taxpayers' expense. May I say a word of praise of the pilots who run these services and may I thank them and the ground staff for the courtesy which they invariably show to all travellers on Scottish routes?
The only point I have to raise about the staff is to ask again a question which I think was asked by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward) in opening the debate. It is not a question of the quality of the staff but it concerns the quantity of the ground staff. In some airports there seem to be a great many. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary, who has been good enough to visit Scottish airports, has two answers to this question. One is that many services are provided at airports today which were not provided previously, particularly such as safety and fire services—and that is perfectly clear; and the other answer is often to say that staffs are not the responsibility of his Ministry or of B.E.A.C. but of the R.A.F. I must say that that has at any rate a slight colour of the old game of "passing the buck." Some of the newer Government Departments have become very adept at this game which has been so long played by their predecessors.
All I ask is that the Parliamentary Secretary should look into this question of ground staffs to see whether there is not some overlap between B.E.A.C. and his own Ministry, because on some airports where there are few services in use I believe some economies between his Ministry and B.E.A.C. might be carried out. No one except the Ministry and B.E.A.C. can tell whether staffs are inflated, but there certainly seem to be a great many people employed on the ground.
I want once again to put on record how important are the air services to Scotland, and in particular to the Highlands and Islands. Fond as one may be of the sea in an Orkney blast or a Shetland gale

there is a great deal to be said for the inside of a Dakota. I want also to stress how great an opportunity exists there for B.E.A.C. I am not sure that the high officials in London all recognise this, although I think Mr. Peter Masefield does and that the point is coming home today. Sometimes we feel that we are regarded as the Cinderella of B.E.A.C. whereas we should at least be looked upon as the Sleeping Beauty, for I am perfectly certain that throughout Scotland there exists great potential traffic.
In a previous debate I drew attention, as an example, to the types of advertisement which B.E.A.C. put up and which seemed to me to be aimed almost exclusively at the very biggest of big business men. I am glad to say that there has been some change, although I am not certain that the new figures which are up on the posters now and who look like the gentlemen who do the shorter book reviews in the "New Statesman" are much better. The sort of people we want to see catered for are men in the Merchant Marine or one of the Services coming back on leave, the crofters or the farmers who want to go to a sale or a show, the ordinary people going on holiday and the business men who have regular trips to make between Edinburgh and Aberdeen, or between Lerwick and Kirkwall and Glasgow or Edinburgh and London.
What sort of service do these people want? They want first of all, of course, as reliable a service as possible. I stress that, because it is very important, if we are to get a big traffic in Scotland, that people should come to know that the service, as a whole, gets through and that it runs to certain times, so that they can plan their appointments accordingly. It is not easy to do that. It is very far from easy to run a really reliable service in Scottish weather, and we know that the Corporation have had to contend with many difficulties, many of which this winter have not been their fault; but I hope that when the summer comes it will make a real effort—as I think it will—to increase the reliability of this service.
I should like to make two suggestions. The first is that as much use as possible should be made of the Rapides, which, I think, can fit in with, and carry some part of, this service. The second is that as much discretion as possible should be given to the local officials in Scotland. I


should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say something about the new types of aircraft. I mean, what is going to take the place of the Rapides? We know that there have been difficulties there, too, and that the Marathon is too big, I believe, for many Scottish airports, and I hope that some plan is being worked out for supplying us with good, small aircraft suitable for our airports.
The second thing everyone wants is cheap fares. That is, no doubt, asking a great deal in these days. I do not know how much can be done about it with rising costs and other difficulties, but we do see planes very often flying fairly empty on some parts of the route—between Glasgow and Aberdeen, and Orkney-Shetland, for instance, even London and Edinburgh sometimes. I have myself seen this—not often, but sometimes; and I wonder if there is not some adjustment which could be made in these fares. To build up traffic, would it not be worth while lowering fares on some of these routes?
The next thing is—and I know that on this matter the Corporation and the Minister are certainly sympathetic—it is very important to get basic regular schedules so that travellers can be pretty certain that a plane always leaves such a place at such a time, so that air travel may become a habit, as it would once we had regular schedules, and when people knew, for instance, in the Orkneys or the Shetlands that a plane always left, say, at 10 a.m. Once regular schedules are arranged the services can be built up and increased, as we hope they will be this summer.
Another most important thing is, when there is an alteration in a service, can it be advertised widely? It is sometimes difficult to know what is happening. At every railway inquiry office it should be possible to learn what the air services are all over Great Britain. Talking about the railways: of course, there does seem to be a lack of liaison in many places between the rail services and the air services, and in an integrated, nationalised transport system I cannot help feeling that should not be.
What about the future? When, in the Orkneys and Shetlands, are we going to get an air link with the more remote islands, and when in the Highlands will

the people be linked up in the more remote places? This is a question which will be familiar to the Parliamentary Secretary, but it is really important. It takes me longer to get away from Westray to Kirkwall than from Kirkwall to London. The hon. Gentleman has seen for himself that the people of those islands are very air minded and air trained. We should like to know also when the people in the North are going to be able to use helicopters. Moreover, what hope is there of two-engined helicopters? That is a very important point. Incidentally, when we do get two-engined helicopters, will they be available for agricultural purposes? No doubt the hon. Gentleman has heard of the experiments in spreading lime by air. That may be an important new development.
The same questions apply to flying boat services. There is a view, I know, that they are uneconomical and unsuitable, but my point is that I feel we must all the time press for experiments to be carried on—for initiative—in all these matters. There is nothing new in what I am saying; but, on the other hand. I do want to impress upon the Government that the people in the North, certainly in my constituency, genuinely want to cooperate with B.E.A., and that they want to feel that air services are a part of their lives, for they rely on them to a great extent, and they want to make constructive proposals for the future.
On the other side, they also want to feel that there is experiment being carried out, and that this monopoly does not rest on its laurels. I do not think it does, but one does feel that it is only by continually pressing these matters that we shall get the full advantage of this undertaking. To use a colloquialism, we refuse to be "blinded by science" on this subject. We have had air travel for some time, and we want to see it increased. It may be in some parts of the world a luxury, but I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not a luxury in the part of the world I am speaking of, but a matter of the greatest importance in our everyday lives. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give an even more encouraging picture next year than he has done this year.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: I shall not detain the House more than a few minutes and indeed


I have no intention of making what might reasonably be called a speech; but I am very anxious to obtain some information on certain topics, and I want to address some questions to the Parliamentary Secretary in the hope that, in his usual courteous manner, he will deal with them when he replies to the debate.
It was stated last year, when the decision was taken to drop the Solent flying boats and to substitute the Hermes, that that decision was taken for reasons of economy. It was stated that the Solents were making a loss and that the Hermes would be more economical to operate. The question I should like to ask is this. Is it not a fact that during the last month of their operation, although there was not a whole fleet of them, the Solents on the South and East African passages were actually making a profit? Is it not a fact also that the serviceability of the Hermes has not been quite so satisfactory as was anticipated? Is it not a fact also that the operating costs of the Hermes are actually greater than were the operating costs of the Solent?
I should also like to ask my hon. Friend what he is doing to dispose of the Solents. It is pretty freely rumoured in Southampton that the Solents are being sold, and that they are being sold for much less than their original cost to the nation. Their original cost to the nation was something like £2,500,000, and it is rumoured that they are being sold at individual rates which will, when they have been disposed of by sale, amount to a total of very much less than £2,500,000.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend this question. If it is a fact that the Solents were making a profit in the last month of their operation, and that the operating costs of the Hermes are greater than the operating costs of the Solent, and that also very considerable loss on the original outlay is being incurred in the sale of the Solents, is the argument that it was for the sake of economy that the change was made from the Solents to the Hermes still a valid one in the opinion of my hon. Friend?
I should also like my hon. Friend, if he can, to say something definite about the future of Southampton Marine Airport. In the answer he gave to a Question of mine last week he said that the passenger handling buildings were to be

disposed of to the best advantage. That seems to me to indicate that in as short a space of time as that in which it is possible to dispose of those buildings to the best advantage there will cease to be any marine airport on Southampton Water.
At the present time the Aquila flying boats are using Southampton Marine Airport, and the Aquila flying boats are the last civilian flying boats remaining in this country. They have been receiving, I understand, some encouragement in their operations from the Portuguese Government—probably more in the interests of the Portuguese Government than in the interests of the Aquila flying boat company. I understand that in their operations they are receiving more encouragement from the Portuguese Government than from my hon. Friend. Does he not think that he should encourage the continuance of these last civilian flying boats in this country?
As my hon. Friend said, Imperial Airways were heavily subsidised from Government funds, but during their existence they did some very valuable work indeed, and had the foresight and wisdom to develop flying boats, which were found to be extremely useful during the war. It will be within my hon. Friend's recollection that those flying boats were very useful in the evacuation of Crete; and I believe they were the instrument by which the Kangaroo route from South Africa to Australia was able to be maintained.
Whatever influences there may be at the top level in B.O.A.C. which are discouraging flying boats, I hope that my hon. Friend will at least see that Southampton Marine Airport is kept open, and that he will give some encouragement to the use of Aquila flying boats to be used there.

Mr. Profumo: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that at the top level in B.O.A.C. there is discouragement of the use of flying boats? If so, could he tell the House how he comes to that conclusion?

Mr. Morley: I come to the conclusion from information I have received from a large variety of sources, and from remarks made by hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite, that there is a personage at a very high level of B.O.A.C. who is not in favour of flying boats, and his


policy is to discourage them as much as possible. I am afraid that I cannot be more explicit than that. I know the name of the gentleman, but I think it would be unwise of me to mention his name in the House in this debate.
Finally, I should like to ask my hon. Friend some questions about the future of the Princess flying-boat. I am sorry to introduce this topic again, but it is one of considerable interest indeed to my constituents. We have been assured on a number of occasions that the Princess flying-boat—and I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) that it is one of the finest achievements of British engineering skill—would be operated by B.O.A.C. and used for passenger services. In the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts of B.O.A.C. for the year ended 31st March, 1950, it is said:
The Corporation continued to render all possible assistance in connection with the Government's SR45 project and to that end has recently installed a full-time resident representive at the manufacturer's works. The most suitable and most economic method of operating these aircraft in conjunction with the other aircraft of the Corporation's fleet is constantly under investigation in the light of engine development programme and traffic trends.
That was as late as 27th July, 1950.
In reply to a debate in the House on 23rd March, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
I can say that these new flying-boats are going to be put into operation, but exactly on what routes we cannot say at the moment … I personally look forward to … a flight in one of these big flying-boats."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 2275.]
I presume he does not look forward to such a flight now with the same pleasurable anticipation, as I understand the purpose for which they are now being used is to carry people to some distant scene of warlike operations. On 29th November my hon. Friend said:
Present indications are that the Princess flying-boat should be ready for service in 1953. Southampton Marine Airport … is being kept by my Department on a care and maintenance basis, whilst such existing marine equipment and facilities as are considered suitable for the Princess are being preserved. The British Overseas Airways Corporation are similarly maintaining their Hythe base, and are retaining a nucleus of staff with experience of flying-boat operations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 1132.]

We have therefore definitely been led to believe that Princess flying-boats will, when completed, operate from Southampton Marine Airport. Now I understand they are to be used as R.A.F. transport. Circumstances have changed, and under the changed circumstances it may be wise to make a different decision as to the final use of these flying-boats. I understand that they will not be used as transports except in case of war. We all hope that war will never happen. In any case, the best informed opinion is that war is not likely to happen for several years yet. These flying-boats will be finished and ready to operate in 1953.
Supposing, as we all hope, and as it is reasonable to suppose, war will not have started by 1953 and that there will be no need to use these flying-boats as troop transports, to what use will these Princess flying-boats be put when completed? Will they be chartered? What will be done with them? Will they fly, as I hope, from the Southampton Marine Airport, which is being kept on a care and maintenance basis? That is all I wish to say, and I apologise for repeating things I have said in previous debates. I hope that my hon. Friend will, with his customary courtesy, be able to give us some answers to these questions when he replies.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Profumo: I was most interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley), with much of which, if I may say so, I am in almost complete agreement. My hon. Friends who have much more knowledge than I have on these topics will, I am sure, deal with the matters he raised in their speeches later on. I will say only this about his speech. I should have thought this was a problem better directed to a recalcitrant Government than to a reluctant Corporation. I believe the basis of this problem lies with the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. colleagues. I was most interested to hear the Parliamentary Secretary's encouraging speech, and if I take up only one of his points, it is because I want to make some of my own which I am hopeful will perhaps be answered when he asks leave of the House to speak again.
I should like to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward) in paying what I consider to be a


well warranted tribute to all levels and all sections of the British air Corporations. When B.O.A.C. say in their report,
The part played by the Corporation's personnel in adding to the prestige of Britain should not be under-estimated,
that is a very worthy tribute which applies to both Corporations. The reports of both Corporations stress, quite rightly, the importance of safety, and it is that with which I want to deal first. One should not let this matter pass without paying a tribute to the ground crews, to the prowess of the pilots and air crews of both Corporations, all of whom deserve the commendation and congratulation of this House for the part they have played.
I believe, however, that competition between airlines from the point of view of comfort and what might be called "gadgetry" is very nearly saturated, and the choice of passengers as to what airlines they choose to travel on really depends on two things: safety and price. Hon. Members know that in most cases the charges are fixed by international agreement, but I respectfully suggest that there is some difference between being confident in this country that our own civil airways are the safest in the world and being able to put that over to the potential international travellers.
Therefore, I welcome very much the decision of the Government to make experiments in changing the seating of civil aircraft from facing for'ard to facing aft. When I asked the Parliamentary Secretary a Question on this matter on the 7th March, he replied:
British civil airworthiness requirements, just issued, include a recommendation that where practicable, passenger seats should face aft."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 433.]
I did not take that matter further at the time because I knew that we were going to have this debate in the near future. I should like, however, to ask the hon. Gentleman one or two questions.
If the Minister of Civil Aviation is sufficiently convinced by the technical advice which he has that there is evidence that there will be increased safety in changing the position of the seats, and if he is prepared to take this matter up with the International Civil Aviation Organisation, then would it not be wise for us to make these conversions for increased

safety without delay? Then may I ask what is meant by "where practicable"? What are the limitations? Could not we start straight away? Is the present limitation capital expenditure? Shall we need a new type of seat? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us something more about this. It seems to me that this sort of development could have a dual achievement. First, by securing greater safety for passengers, and, secondly, if this change is accompanied by suitable propaganda, by encouraging the potential international traveller to use British aircraft instead of foreign airlines.
I want to say a word about staff. I was interested to see in both reports that the Corporations naturally take pride in having been able to effect a further reduction in manpower, and I think that B.E.A.C. has done well to be able to eradicate autumn redundency for the first time. I would be among the first to encourage even further economy in manpower. I think, however, that we have to consider another factor, and that is the outlook of existing and potential employees. In B.O.A.C.'s report it is stated on page 21:
… our employees now enjoy a far greater sense of continuity of employment than has heretofore been the case.
I think that the Parliamentary Secretary also laid stress on that problem when he was speaking. But is that strictly true? I wonder whether they do feel a real sense of continuity of employment, and if so, does it mean that we can expect little further reduction in manpower? Continuity of employment is certainly one of the most important factors in maintaining and recruiting a really high standard of employees. Would the Parliamentary Secretary assure us that this salutary trend in economy is not having an adverse effect on the personnel of the Corporation?
One other matter about which I feel strongly in this: Can he assure us that there is no employee in either of the Government's Corporations who, if there is redundency, will be frightened that he will be one of the first to go because he does not belong to a particular trade union? Can we be assured that there is no fear of any sort on the grounds of what one might call trade union victimisation if redundancy does occur? I think that a statement by the hon. Gentleman


on that matter would have a helpful effect, as we know that much controversy has occurred in this respect in the past.
My next question is this: What about the Brabazon? This is a subject which has caused the Government and, I think, B.O.A.C. a great deal of embarrassment. It is a subject on which the public are widely concerned, and it is one on which I am myself, in a humble way, by no means satisfied. This great achievement of aircraft design, construction and engineering, as hon. Members know, had its inception in 1943 under the auspices of that great pioneer of civil aviation Lord Brabazon of Tara and at the instigation of the Coalition Government. I think that it would indeed be tragic if all the money and initiative which has been expended on this great venture ended in a stalemate.
I have listened to an argument in this House by hon. Gentlemen opposite fairly frequently of late, and it is an argument which comes out when they think that they are up against failure. Are we to be told that a great deal of technical information has been acquired by the aircraft industry in the production of the Brabazon which will be of immense use in the future? I do not believe that that is strictly correct, and I am getting rather tired of that argument. I am aware that there have been all sorts of changes of priorities since its inception, but have the Government a policy with regard to the Brabazon? If they have a policy, what is it?
The figure of £14 million has been mentioned as the cost up-to-date. Is that money to be written-off? How much of this venture is covered by that £14 million. Does it cover everything up-to-date—the construction of the Brabazon I and the construction of the Brabazon II as well? In what stage is the Brabazon II? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I appear to be ignorant on these matters but I am really seeking information. Can we be assured that the Brabazon II will be completed? What about the other Brabazon II, which I call the Brabazon III, and which, I think, has been started? How far has it gone? Will the £14 million cover all that, including the Brabazon III?

Mr. Beswick: I do not want to appear to be "passing the buck," but I think that

I should say that the responsibility for the development of the Brabazon belongs to the Ministry of Supply, and it would be very much better if the hon. Gentleman addressed his questions to the Minister of Supply.

Mr. Profumo: I was keeping one eye on you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the other on the Parliamentary Secretary, in case you might call me to order. I am not able to ask the Minister of Supply these questions today, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to consult with him and then give me an answer.

Air Commodore Harvey: When one puts a question to the Minister of Supply it is transferred to the Minister of Civil Aviation.

Mr. Profumo: I was going to ask: What are the plans which the Government have for this Colossus? There seems to be a lot of passing of the buck, or should one say "Brab"; our Parliamentary questions go backwards and forwards from one Department to the other. We are lead to believe that B.O.A.C. do not relish the idea of operating this aircraft. I think that it is up to the Government to produce a plan by which the operation of this aircraft could be made to work. It must not, at all costs, become a dead loss. I feel that if it is in service even as a phenomenon of its type it will earn increased prestige for this country. It seems that, whatever happens, the poor old taxpayer must bear the severe cost of its production.
I do not think that it would be equitable to insist that one of the Corporations should take over that commitment themselves, but has B.O.A.C. put forward any plan on which they would be prepared to operate the Brabazon? I may be wrong, but I understand that if they did they would wish to do so under a separate account. What are the Minister's views in that respect? Has he had something put up to him, and what are his reactions? I have read in the newspapers that there is some talk of B.E.A. operating the Brabazon for what one might call hedge-hopping between this country and Paris. What are the economics of that suggestion? Would it not be better that this aeroplane should go further afield where it can operate more economically? Has the Minister


considered tendering this aircraft out to B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and the charter companies as well—to see if anyone is prepared to operate it?
Finally, has any consideration been given by the Government to the use of the Brabazon during war-time? This is perhaps the most important question of all. Some study should be given to this at once. What are the intentions of the Government in regard to the role of the Corporations in the unhappy event of war? I should be out of order if I started to discuss the Royal Air Force now, but perhaps I may be permitted to comment that as it would be patently uneconomic to maintain a large transport command in peace-time the Government should have a clear-cut plan as to how to expand this essential service, making use of the resources of the civil airlines. Would B.O.A.C. continue to operate commercially? What role would B.E.A. have, and how far have any plans gone to making speedy conversions?
We are obviously all agreed on one thing, and that is that the charter companies would be switched over immediately to military transport duties. Therefore, if only for the reason of our re-armament programme, it seems essential that we should have a thriving group of charter concerns, which should be encouraged and fostered by the Government. These operators should be assured of a normal development of their legitimate commercial activities and should not be hampered by the Minister of Civil Aviation, as I believe they are being at the moment.
During the passage of the Civil Aviation Bill repeated assurances were given that there would be complete fairness as between the corporations and the private companies. We are all very familiar now with the policy of the Government, to squeeze out the small man, stopping him wherever he can show a profit. I believe this to be one- of the most damnable features of nationalisation, that it seems incapable of competing with any private enterprise firms. The Minister of Supply, who is now in his place, will agree that the more we have nationalisation the more we have to extend its sphere for fear that it will be conquered by private enterprise concerns. That is at the rock bottom of what Members on this side

keep pointing out is going on in the Civil Aviation world today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester has been told that he cannot have it both ways, but the Government seem to be trying to disprove that theory. We are not trying to have it both ways, but the Government are. The two solemn assurances that were given during the passage of the Civil Aviation Bill were that the air transport corporations would not be permitted to compete unfairly in the air charter field, and that subsidies from the taxpayers' pocket would not be used to finance or pay for charter work by the corporations. It really does make one sick to see promise after promise of the Government broken like a lot of old crockery.
It is patently obvious that these two promises have not been kept. We have only to look at the B.O.A.C. report of last year to see that 6 million odd capacity ton miles were flown on charter work, which is an increase of 3 million over the previous year. There is a note on the report to say that this is largely due to the Berlin Airlift. But can that be so with 3 million capacity ton miles? This seems to me to be a further encroachment into the charter field. It is somewhat natural that the Government should give priority to their own air Corporations when they want charter work done, but an analysis of the report shows that, far from making a profit, a loss was made on the charter work by B.O.A.C.
The Government say, "We want to reduce the amount of subsidy," and instead of allowing aircraft to lie idle during the off season they should be used on charter work to "reduce the amount of the subsidy." But if this charter work is costing the corporations money, it seems to me that this work is only increasing the burden of the subsidy.

Group Captain Wilcock: If the hon. Member had been in the House during the passage of the Bill, he would have found Members opposite were pressing all the time for a profit to be made by the Corporations. Many of us feel that it is quite wrong for the Corporations to do charter work, but, as my hon. Friend has said, Members opposite cannot have it both ways. If they are continually pressing for a profit to be made, then the people at the head of


these Corporations will go out for business. Therefore, the result is due to Members opposite.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does not my hon. Friend agree that B.O.A.C. have added seven Yorks to their fleet for charter work?

Mr. Profumo: I am not sure who is against me in this because the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock) has really stressed the point I was making. He has agreed that a great deal of charter work is being done by the public Corporations. He then says that we cannot have it both ways, because if we want to reduce costs they must go out and get business. The point I am making is that although they have gone out to get the business they are not making a profit but a loss.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester referred to page 43 of the B.O.A.C. report. He pointed out that although the report showed that during the period under review there was a surplus or profit on charter or "Other Than Schedule Services" of £260,272, there was, in fact, no charge shown under the heading of "Operating Overheads." In the report operating overheads are divided into "Sales Publicity, Technical Training and Development, Central Supplies and Organisation and Administration." I cannot believe that this 6 million-odd capacity ton miles of charter flying could have been negotiated and flown without any expenses under these headings.
It is quite cleat to anyone who really studies the report that there must have been overheads incurred in this charter flying. If we look elsewhere in the annual report we find that it states that the operating overheads of the Corporation as a whole during that period were 12.9d. per capacity ton mile. If we divide the total capacity ton miles flown, exclusive of charter work, into the total cost of the operating overheads, it will be found that the figure comes to 14.4d. per capacity ton mile.
It is only by adding in the mileage flown on charter flights that we come anywhere near the figure given in paragraph 72, estimating that charter flights have no higher and no lower overhead costs than direct route flights. If one works on that basis we get a figure of something like £32,000, which ought to be added to this

report. That makes it quite a different state of affairs, because instead of a financial profit of approximately £260,000, we find there is a loss. Once more that horrible word crops up, as it has continually done in the British vocabulary since Socialism came into power. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members opposite are fond of the loss motive, while we support the profit motive. At any rate, losses are more frequent than they were before Socialism, and here it has cropped up again to something like £71,000.
I am forced to the conclusion that the accounts have been so arranged in order to show a profit merely to safeguard the Minister's undertaking that the subsidy would not be used to finance charter work, while patiently it has been used. The charter companies, of course, have no subsidies whatever, and in spite of the pressure put upon them, they have valiantly kept their heads above water and have been able to operate and make a profit. They go out of business if they do not. Why do the Government not persist with their policy of fair shares for all when it comes to a question of businesses operating in competition against nationalised concerns? The country should not be robbed of, and cannot afford to lose, these independent industries, particularly this one of air charter services.
The country requires certain things from the Minister of Civil Aviation. First, it requires him to abandon his parochial policy of thinking only of the interests of the Corporations; secondly, it requires him to appreciate that he has a duty to the air industry as a whole; and, thirdly, it requires him to adopt the policy which will assist and not damage the policies put forward by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

6.15 p.m.

Group Captain Wilcock: I should like first of all to congratulate the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward) on the speech which he made in opening this debate. I sensed in that speech a different spirit from that which we have had in the past from the Opposition. In the past it has been a continual policy of criticising the Corporations about the losses that have been made and this has not assisted those who have the responsibility of running these Corporations. The criticisms may have been made


with the best intentions, and may not have been just a party matter. Nevertheless, they have hardly encouraged those charged with the success of the Corporations.
The Parliamentary Secretary was quite right in saying that tremendous progress had been made in the last year or two. I myself have noticed it in my travels, and today British aviation is really feared in a commercial sense by competitors overseas. Great strides have been made and much credit is due to those at the head of the Corporations and right down to the air crews and the passenger-handling staff. That improvement is recognised in all parts of the world.
I must turn now to a subject which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo)—the private operator. I find myself embarrassingly in the same camp as he is on this subject, with hon. Members opposite. I think the Government have made a mistake in their policy. I have consistently said that charter work should not be done by the Corporations. I am personally connected in business with charter operators, and, as is the custom of this House, I declare my interest. During the Committee stage of the Civil Aviation Bill and right through the last Parliament I felt that it was unnecessary for the Corporations to enter into this field, because it would not be in the interests of the private operators, and it is definitely in the national interest that the private operators should be kept in good condition. I was allowed, in the interjection that I made, to place the responsibility for this position on hon. Members opposite, because they have pressed all the time for one thing, and that is that there should be economy in the operations of the British Corporations irrespective of how that economy was to be effected.

Air Commodore Harvey: That is untrue.

Group Captain Wilcock: Oh, yes, because it must have been known that if business people are at the head of these Corporations, they will obviously use their aircraft and staff to the best possible advantage. Hon. Members who are also connected with aviation would have done precisely the same. If there is one job to

be done, and that is to make the Corporations pay, it is done irrespective of outside interests altogether.
The hon. Member for Stratford was adrift in one thing, when he said that if we put the overheads of some of these charter flights that the Corporations are doing against the ordinary flying of the Corporations, then the Corporations would not have made a profit on them. What they would have made is less of a loss than if the Corporations had not been doing charter flying. I have contended that in these Corporations in the post-war years we must expect losses for some time while the Corporations are getting on their feet.

Mr. Profumo: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member has got me right. If the Corporations are making a loss and it is the charter work which is making a loss, how does it mean that there is less loss at the end of the year as a result of charter flying? It does not appear to make sense?

Group Captain Wilcock: I think we are in agreement about this.
I want to come to another point which was raised by the hon. Member. He spoke about the future of civil aviation in the unfortunate event of hostilities. It is a very important matter in my view, because civil aviation, including the charter companies, are the first reserve of the Royal Air Force. There is the reserve of aircraft and air crews, and therefore plans can be made for it now. It is not a question of calling up reserves, and I want to underline what has been said in this matter about planning being done now. In this respect we must look to the Dominions and to the Colonial Governments to see that there is a plan which takes into consideration the possibility of reinforcing this country. That can be done by our Corporations, the charter companies and by the Dominion and colonial air concerns. But whether anything will be done, about this, I am doubtful.
My criticism arises from the fact that I had the honour to be the chairman of a committee two years ago, with a very distinguished list of members. They were so distinguished that I felt in a very privileged position as their chairman. We made what we thought was a very good


report. It took us a year to make it. I feel that sufficient consideration has not been given by His Majesty's Government to that report. We stressed that there should be very close liaison with the Royal Air Force and that there should be a standing committee to consider matters such as the pre-selection of R.A.F. aircrew for civil aviation, and other matters of common interest between the Air Ministry and Ministry of Civil Aviation.
I am disappointed to have to say to the House that to the best of my knowledge very little has been done with that, report, or with another report compiled at the same time by Air Commodore Helmore, who is a very distinguished scientist and aviator, the only thing against him being that he once sat on the benches opposite. That also was a very full and comprehensive report. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will have these two reports dug out and will look at the recommendations that we made. I have not given to the Minister a warning about these questions, so I shall not expect a reply now.
I consider that very great progress has been made by our Corporations, but I am sorry that I cannot report the same thing right through civil aviation, so far as private operators, flying clubs and other flying organisations are concerned. We want a healthy civil aviation in this country not only in the Corporations but every where else. In time of need we shall be very glad to have the whole field of aviation in a healthy and thriving condition, and the Minister as the Minister of Civil Aviation and not solely the Minister for the Corporations.

6.23 p.m.

Air Commodore Harvey: I must refute what the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock) said about the Opposition. During the past two years we have had most agreeable debates on this subject, and I know that the previous Parliamentary Secretary has often said so from the Treasury Bench. In the main, in what we have said, we have tried to be constructive, but when there are losses amounting to something like £10 million a year, naturally we have been critical. We should not be carrying out our duties as Members of Parliament taking care of the country's finances unless we were. I

can assure the hon. and gallant Member that we shall not be deterred from our criticism. We shall be constructive and, where necessary, we shall criticise.
When the Parliamentary Secretary spoke, he seemed to be so cheerful that I fully expected him to declare an interim dividend. He seemed to ignore the fact that these Corporations have been losing more than £9 million during the year. There may be adequate reasons for part of the loss, but not for the whole amount. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the controllers and the difficulties in the London zone. I would ask him to consider trying to do something to improve the position of these men, who take greater and greater responsibility as time goes on, while they are grossly underpaid for the responsibility they have to accept. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do something more about it.
The losses of the two Corporations combined are £9.2 million, as against £9.7 for the previous year. That is not a very big reduction, considering the new types of aircraft that have been brought into use. I fully realise that there are other factors such as increased cost of materials, higher wages and so on. The Corporations are not alone in that respect. Every business in the country has to face the same problems and difficulties. The Parliamentary Secretary has my sympathy in one respect, in that the Corporations have to accept a lower rate for the carriage of mail than do foreign airlines. The maximum rate is six gold francs per ton-kilometre. That is the rate allowed in the Postal Convention, but the B.O.A.C. and the B.E.A. have had nothing like that at all. The Americans get considerably higher rates. The Postmaster-General and his staff drove a very hard bargain with the Corporations in this matter. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether he and his noble Friend have put up a case for the proper rate to be paid for the carriage of these mails.
No doubt B.E.A. have made the better showing of the two. I can quite see that their task is in some ways not so difficult. They certainly have the plum routes of the world. If they cannot pay on the routes to Paris and other parts of the Continent, the Channel Islands and Scandinavia, they never will. I should like to congratulate Lord Douglas and


Mr. Peter Masefield, his very able lieutenant in B.E.A., on what they have done.
In a short speech it is not possible to go into all the problems that one would like to, but it seems to me that B.O.A.C. have not a clear policy. They have never had one. They have drifted from one type of aircraft to another. I could quite understand that in the post-war period they had to get on as best they could. Otherwise, it would have meant no operation and no aircraft at all. Mistakes were made.
I am going to confine my remarks on the subject to the Princess flying boats. On 7th March, the Parliamentary Secretary said, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston):
Owing to the rapid progress which has been made in the development of the Comet it is now thought likely that the Comet will be better adapted for the needs of civil aviation than the larger flying boats, and accordingly it has been decided that British Overseas Airways Corporation shall not introduce these boats into service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 434.]
The Parliamentary Secretary went on to talk about their being transferred to the Royal Air Force, but surely the Corporations and the Minister knew a year ago how good the Comet was. It has been flying for two years and has done something like 500 hours. Why has this matter been left for two years? I am not at all satisfied with the explanation; this matter goes much deeper than that. I know what one hears in aviation gossip: that B.O.A.C. have had their doubts all along about the operation of flying boats.
I do not want to go into this matter except to say that B.S.A.A. gave an undertaking, through Air Commodore Brackley, that the boats would be operated by the Corporation. B.O.A.C. were fully committed, and took them over under the Air Corporations Act, on 30th July, 1949. B.O.A.C, if they had any doubts about the flying boats, should have had the matter out with the Minister of Civil Aviation at that time. When they were asked to take over the commitments of B.S.A.A. they should have made it clear that they had no intention of operating these boats unless they were given certain financial facilities. I

suspect that they were not big enough to do that, and that they were instructed by the Minister of Civil Aviation and the Minister of Supply that these boats were a commitment and had to be operated. Pressure must have been brought to bear from both Ministries.
On 23rd July, 1950, when a delegation of Members of Parliament went down to the flying-boat base at Hythe, the Chairman of B.O.A.C. said:
B.O.A.C. is flying-boat-minded. I believe that Britain has a definite lead in flying-boat manufacture and operation. We want to see the passenger attraction of this type of aircraft upheld.
On 13th October, 1950, only five months ago, B.O.A.C. gave a handout to the Press. I will not weary the House by reading all of it, but it is headed:
Formation of B.O.A.C. 'Princess' Unit. Preparing the way for Britain's great new flying-boat.
A B.O.A.C. 'Princess' unit is being formed to prepare for the introduction into the service by the Corporation of the 105-seater 'Princess' flying-boat, at present being built at the Saunders-Roe Works at Cowes, Isle of Wight.
It went on to speak about the manager in charge, and so on. It is a most extraordinary thing to make these public statements one after the other if there was a disagreement or lack of confidence in the Corporation. It goes even further than that. The mayor of Southampton received a letter from the Chairman dated 20th December, 1950, in which he said:
No one regrets the necessity to interrupt our flying-boat activities more than I do. I have always had a devotion to flying-boats, but as new types of land-planes came along, and the economics became more difficult, we have been forced, by the pressure of events, to abandon, at least temporarily, the operations we have so pleasantly conducted from Southampton for so long … We have the warmest regard for your area and I am looking forward to the day when we can recommence our activities at full strength.
Why have the House and the public been misled on this important matter, which involves several million pounds? Assurances were given earlier on when the Corporations were nationalised that no pressure would be put on the higher executives of the Corporations, that they would be allowed to run their business as a leader of industry would in one of the larger industries in free enterprise, and that there would be no interference. But it is clear that there has been interference and pressure.

Mr. Beswick: I cannot quite get the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point. I am not quite sure what he is getting at. Is he suggesting that we ought to be operating these flying-boats, or is he suggesting that we ought not to be operating them?

Air Commodore Harvey: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will try to make it clear to him. I really have in mind the financial background here and that B.O.A.C. can slide out of the financial responsibility because of a decision which has been taken. I will come to the point about the boats later on. Assurances have been given that the Corporation would be allowed to operate them, and yet we see that the executives who today want one thing are being compelled to do another. The most alarming thing about these nationalised industries is that we see men with great experience, men for whom we have great respect, being put under pressure for some reason or another to hide a muddle, or whatever it may be. If the executives disagreed with the Minister, a course was open to them—a course which we rarely see taken these days—and that is resignation, with a strong letter to "The Times" and other newspapers to say why. That is the proper thing to do if there is a disagreement.
During the last few years vast sums of money have been spent on these flying-boats and there has been preparation to operate the boats commercially. I can well see that there has been a fortunate let-out for the Corporation—good luck to them—in the transfer of the boats to Transport Command. I am sure that the flying-boats will render great service. I hope it will not be just in case there is a war, for in peace time they can be used for transport in the place of ships. If those boats have been prepared in the works to operate commercially, certain large sums of money have been spent on modifications for passenger comfort and so on, and if that is not all to be utilised in the final project, will B.O.A.C. bear the cost? I should like to have an assurance on that point.

Mr. Beswick: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman has left the previous point, but I should like to be clear about this. I am not sure whether he is complaining that the pressure was brought to bear on the Chairman

of the Corporation to make the Corporation use these boats or whether he is complaining that we are not now going to use them.

Air Commodore Harvey: What I am saying—I thought I made myself fairly clear—is that public statements have been made over the last two years that the Corporation had every intention of operating the boats. Yet we were told last week that they will not be operated. It is well known that the higher executives of the Corporation never wanted to operate the boats, and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can deny it. I want to be fair about this, if possible. What I am pointing out is that these statements have been made, although the Corporation did not want to operate the boats. It would have been far better if they had come to a decision a year or two ago and saved the taxpayers' money. As mistakes have been made, I want to know if B.O.A.C. will be compelled to bear some of the cost for preparing the boats for commercial operation.
I now turn to the subsidiary companies. I recognise the necessity at present, certainly under this Government, for B.O.A.C. to operate the world trunk routes—I should not expect them to alter that—but if they confined their efforts to that instead of operating, or having investments in, so many other companies, I am sure everybody would be better off. The loss in that direction, after deducting what few profits there were, was £287,490. That is a lot of money—not in relation to the £9 million, but it is a lot of money all the same. Aden Airways, with great credit, made a small profit on the first six months. Bahama Airways lost £17,549. British West Indian Airways lost £218,425. International Aeradio made a small profit. I should like to congratulate that organisation because I believe that it renders a great service to civil aviation.
Then there were the associated companies in which B.O.A.C. has a financial interest. Aer Lingus made a reduced loss. If ever this country struck a bad agreement, it was with Aer Lingus, for the route between London and Dublin should have been a gold mine instead of one that made a loss. We are told in the report that Hong Kong Airways were sold out, but we are not told how much money it cost the Government. What is the financial position? Enormous sums of money were


spent out there. The people on the spot should have been left to operate with their own money.
The same applies to the subsidiary companies of British European Airways. Gibraltar Airways lost £11,660. Aer Lingus, in which B.E.A.C. also have an interest, provided a loss of £6,400. The sum of £93,000 was provided for losses by an Italian airline whose name I cannot pronounce. Cyprus Airways made a profit. The Government should look into this matter to see if there is some way of shedding their responsibilities for these subsidiary companies. Most of the money is held by the governments and business people in the Colonies, and I suggest that nothing would be lost on the feeder lines serving the main trunk route. I should like an assurance that that will be gone into.
The Corporations are bound by international agreements regarding the prices for freight—except for air mail—and passengers, but they are unable, like other nationalised industries when they are making losses, to pass them on to the consumer. They are bound by international agreement to keep to the rates. It is a good example of a nationalised industry having a yardstick by operating in competition with the other air lines.
As has been said, all of us in this House wish the Corporations well. Their safety record is magnificent. Of course, there is the odd accident, just as there is at sea, and just as there was on the railways only last week, unfortunately. There is no doubt, however, that further economies have to be made. I am not at all satisfied by the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary of why we had that vast organisation set up three years ago. More use could be made of agents overseas working on commission instead of having permanent staff belonging to the Corporation.
I am sure all of us hope that the Government, in the short time they may be in power, will apply themselves to the problem of reducing overhead costs. They should get the chief executives of the Corporations busy with a blue pencil. They will have to be quite ruthless. These things cannot be done lightly when there is a loss of £9 million a year. I am sure that economies can be made, and I hope

very much that efforts will be made in that direction.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: I want to comment on two points made by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey). He referred first to controllers, saying that they should be better paid. I could not but agree with him on that point, but also I think they should be expected to take a little more responsibility than they do at the present moment, when the safety of aircraft is involved.
I believe that the Brabazon Committee did not consult with any controllers in making its recent report on the safety of aircraft operation. That tends to put the controllers in a false position. Also a recent investigation conducted by the Attorney-General into the crash of a B.E.A. aircraft, with the loss of 27 lives, indicated that the minimum operating conditions laid down by B.E.A. were not complied with. If the airline operators lay down minimum operating requirements, these should be observed by the pilots, under the instructions, if need be, of the controllers or of the airline operation directors. Therefore, I think that the question of their functions should be reviewed.
I would comment also on the remark of the hon. and gallant Gentleman about International Aerradio Ltd. They certainly made a profit but I believe that profit was taken from the Corporations because I.A.L. had been taking on the work for the Corporations. To begin with they did the same work the Corporations had been doing and charged 10 or 15 per cent. extra to cover the costs of administrative expenses.
The first concept of I.A.L. was a good one. It was thought that it should be a truly international undertaking with shares contributed by all the countries running airlines and making use of the services provided by I.A.L. But what has happened is that we are really running I.A.L. largely for the benefit of other countries whose contribution, in terms of the shares they have taken up, is not proportional to the services rendered to them. I believe I.A.L. could have become a truly international company. This is borne out by the fact that the Dutch, finding that it was not truly international, decided to


set up their own undertaking which they hope to make more international in its activities than we have done.
It was obvious that after the war there would be an extended period of difficulty confronting the civil airline operators, but it was hoped sincerely by all of us that the majority of these difficulties would be overcome within six years of the termination of hostilities. Indeed, the situation was steadily improving until recently, when there were a number of set backs which seem a little disheartening. Perhaps I may refer to one or two of these incidents which have dashed our hopes.
First of all. London Airport, which is costing us between £25 million and £30 million, was steadily developing. It was certainly well ahead of any similar aerodrome in New York because neither Idlewild nor La Guardia is considered to be good. It was catching up with Schipol aerodrome at Amsterdam, which forged ahead after the war although it had been badly damaged by bombs during the war. The Dutch took the opportunity of purchasing some old R.A.F. hangars—which would have done for our own London Airport. The Dutch are to be congratulated on that, because they showed a greater initiative than was shown by the Ministry of Civil Aviation and those responsible for providing the buildings on London Airport. Now we are confronted with a shortage of steel, which will hold up some of the hangars required by the Corporations to start their operations from there.
The second misfortune applies to the Brabazon, to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo). When my hon. Friend replies to this debate, I hope he will tell us something about the Brabazon I. Is it that the engines being developed are not altogether suitable for civil operation, thus making the aircraft uneconomic when it goes into commercial service? Or is it perhaps a question of suitable aerodromes being provided for this large aircraft? We ought to know the answers to these questions because the matter was considered thoroughly by the Estimates Committee, and their report Number 2, of 1947–48, showed that a number of questions were asked from various people who gave evidence. The British Overseas Airways Corporation representatives

came before that Committee. I thought their answers were pathetically unknowledgeable and indicated that the matter had not been thought out in 1942 by the Corporation with the thoroughness required when the Brabazon Committee went into the question of suitable aircraft for airline operation which would be developed within a few years after the war for use on the air routes by our British Corporations.
It is an indication of weakness on the part of British Overseas Airway Corporation that they have failed to study their requirements clearly in regard to the aircraft needed to operate their routes. If it were any other undertaking operating transport, such as a bus company, a railway company or a shipping company, it would state to the manufacturers clearly what was required. It would lay down a specification covering the requirements of the route which it was operating and would obtain what was necessary for the economic operation of its routes.
The third disappointment is the handing over of the Princess flying boats to R.A.F. Transport Command. Essential difficulties arise in providing suitable aerodromes for large aircraft such as the Brabazon, but ostensibly there are aerodromes capable of taking large flying boats in all parts of the world. It may be that land planes are capable of being developed up to such a size that runways will otherwise need to be strengthened at too great cost, but aircraft in excess of a maximum size will have to be developed as flying boats if we want to go to larger proportions.
The fourth disappointment is the De Havilland Comet to which the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield referred. I am not quite so optimistic as the hon. and gallant Member appeared to be in suggesting that here was the sort of great white hope of our civil aviation. I think that this aircraft has been grabbed at by B.O.A.C. as a drowning man grasps at a straw. I am not yet convinced that a jet aircraft can be operated sufficiently economically over sufficiently long stages to ensure the operating company making a profit from its operation.
I want my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, if he is not able to reply to this point in the debate—he will have many questions to answer considering the number of points already put to


him—to consider this very carefully and to obtain from the Corporation at a very early date some operating statistics to indicate quite conclusively whether or not this aircraft, when it is put on the routes where the Corporation propose to use it between this country and Australia and also on the route to South Africa, will be capable of being operated economically and successfully when introduced to these routes.
Since the Brabazon Committee sat, only one aircraft has been designed for post-war use—that is, the Hermes. Apart from this, in the eight years since the Brabazon Committee made their review, no long-distance aircraft has been developed which is suitable for introduction on service at an early date by the Corporations. This is extremely disappointing, and by way of emphasis I repeat my earlier comment that had the Corporations put out their requirements clearly, I think they would have had avialable to them by now, or would have had very shortly, a really suitable aircraft.
I should like to refer to the improvements that have been made in the Corporations' operations in the last few years. It has been said that since 1938 the British Corporations have increased their passenger miles 11 times, which sounds a formidable increase in their activities, but as an indication that other countries are forging ahead more rapidly, it is worth noting the results which are being achieved in some of those other countries. Norway, for example, starting, perhaps, from a point lower down the scale than we were at in 1938, has increased 56 times in a similar period, Canada 41 times, Ireland 34, India 25, Australia 19, the U.S.A. 16, South Africa 15, France 13, New Zealand 12. Then comes the United Kingdom, tenth down the list, with 11 times. Belgium, Denmark and Switzerland have each increased 10 times. Although we are pleased to note the progress made by our Corporations, the rapidity of increase which these other countries have set us is a real challenge, and we must accept it.
I should like to refer now to the reports which are available on the operations of the Corporations. To me the significant thing is that British European Airways' Report is so very much better set out than is that of British Overseas Airways.

That in itself signifies an attitude of mind of that Corporation compared with B.O.A.C, and shows an aliveness, an alertness and an imaginativeness which are essential for the job of running airlines successfully.
This debate is, in effect, the annual shareholders' meeting and as such it is appropriate, since so much public money is involved, that we should focus our attention rather on the critical things—in other words, the things which require to be put right. Whilst giving full credit for the progress that has been made, we need on these occasions rather to emphasise the things we should still like to see being done, so that we may get even better results. The public are having to foot far too heavy a bill.
Since 1945 B.O.A.C. alone, up to the most recent accounts we have had, have lost a total of over £32 million. Last year the figure was nearly £8 million, but it is now down, as my hon. Friend has told us, to £5 million. These amounts have had to be made up by Exchequer grants. Over a similar period, B.E.A. have lost something not far short of £10 million. If we add to these losses the expenses incurred in running the Ministry of Civil Aviation—some £15 million a year, apart from these Exchequer grants—we begin to see that the cost of nearly £24 million is something which is pretty heavy for the public purse to have to meet each year. All this is to all intents and purposes for the operation of some 200 or so aircraft which are owned and operated by the two Corporations.
I know that the Ministry of Civil Aviation help the charter companies to some extent, but in the main their expenses are directed towards the operation of our own civil air Corporations' aircraft. If we add also the cost of experimental work in developing new aircraft such as the Brabazon, the Comet, the Princess flying boat and so forth, we begin to feel that the bill is a pretty hefty one to meet. We therefore have the job of seeing that the money is being spent in the wisest possible way. I should like, therefore, to focus now a little attention on the Corporations separately.
I am told that B.E.A. would have made a profit had they received similar air mail subsidies as are given to United States operators. This is a very hopeful sign, for if we were to compare B.E.A. on a level with the American operators they


would be showing results which were satisfactory even at this time. At the same time, we should not overlook, however, that some of those United States operators who are operating at a profit are doing so without any air mail subsidies at all. I congratulate B.E.A. on the progress they are making, especially compared with B.O.A.C.
One of the most important things is the greatly improved staff relations which now exist. I believe from my contacts with people employed in B.E.A. that morale is at present extremely high. The Corporation's employees look forward at an early date to the time when the Corporations will be showing a profit irrespective of any increase in air mail subsidies. They are showing an efficiency which is very gratifying to those of us who have watched carefully the type of organisation that is being built up by these nationalised undertakings. This is one of the first examples of a really high morale being developed due to the fact that a high standard of efficiency is being achieved.
One is reminded of the wartime film of Noel Coward's "In Which We Serve," the theme of which was that the efficient ship was the happy ship. I believe that the B.E.A. has become a happy ship, especially since the appointment of Mr. Peter Masefield. Mr. Masefield introduced a new policy, which was very refreshing. His idea was to hide nothing and both to invite criticism from inside the Corporation—criticism was encouraged from those employed by the Corporation without any fear of victimisation or of earning bad marks from those in control—and also to obtain criticism from the outside. This is a healthy state of mind, and is the sort of thing which we on this side particularly would like to see being manifested in all the nationalised undertakings.
Following almost automatically from this policy are the very full statistical checks which are maintained continuously by B.E.A., which give the management an accurate day-to-day picture of the operation and development of the airline. The management can see immediately when they are going in the right direction of improving their standards of efficiency and working towards the day when they will show a profit. On the other hand, they can see where they are

going wrong, even before the trouble arises. The immediate effect of their policy at any time is shown up and is known to all members of the staff. It is highly probable that this same procedure applies also to B.O.A.C, but so far as I am aware—I have made inquiries to find out whether my information was wrong—B.O.A.C. do not go to the same trouble to ensure that their day-to-day operational results are known both to those inside the Corporation and to those outside the Corporation, as is done by B.E.A.
These two Corporations are operating on rather different kinds of policies for their management. It is worth looking at this aspect for a moment, for not only does it apply to these airways Corporations but has the wider significance of being appropriate to the whole field of nationalisation. There are two ways in which these public Corporations can operate. The first is by a policy board of governors rather similar to that of B.O.A.C. Under that there is the chief executive with his board of administrative and technical officers. I believe that in the case of B.O.A.C, and certainly some of the other Corporations, far too much is referred to the centre, which prevents immediate decisions and imaginative work from being done by those lower down in the organisation.
These boards have tended in the past to be made up of what I might term "safe men" who are not likely to cause too much trouble to the officials in the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Sometimes they are ex-civil servants or ex-Royal Air Force men who are rather too old to grasp the new problems of a technical and commercial nature thrown up by civil aviation. Unfortunately, there has been too little experience of commerce and civil aviation shown by these boards. We have gone far too readily for people with titles rather than people with talents. I think that if perhaps my hon. Friend is able to look into this question on some occasion, he will find it is of great significance in the question of whether the Corporations will operate successfully or otherwise in the future.
In regard to the boards of governors which have been appointed, I suggest that they are inclined to be far too remote from the people inside the undertakings. That has applied, for instance, in the case


of the B.B.C., where I suppose hardly any of those working for the Corporation know even the names of the members of the board of governors, as has been shown by the Beveridge Report. I suggest that all these boards of governors should be dissolved and that it is necessary to have the small technical board under a knowledgeable chief executive working alongside an elected body. In that way only would it be possible to have a really democratic influence coming into these nationalised and public undertakings. This elected board, or national council, for each nationalised undertaking would have on it trade union representatives and those with technical and professional experience from professional bodies and also consumers' representatives instead of having the sort of thing which we have in civil aviation, the Civil Aviation Consultative Council, which seems to have very little work to do and which, in its own report, complains of the fact that so few problems are brought to its attention. That is an indication of its ineffectiveness.
This proposal is not a new suggestion from one or two of us, but is something which has been thought out and advocated by such Socialists as G. D. H. Cole.

Mr. Harry Wallace: Will my hon. Friend indicate which body he suggests should make decisions, the technical body or the council composed of various interests?

Mr. Cooper: The technical body, I suggest, would be responsible for all executive decisions. The council would be there as a public forum and in a discursive capacity to influence the executive but not to undermine its authority. The effect in industry where this type of organisation has been set up has been for the council to strengthen and increase the reputation and status of the executive board.

Mr. Wallace: I am not arguing, but I want to understand my hon. Friend's suggestion. Who makes decisions on policy?

Mr. Cooper: The policy proposals would be discussed first in the council, but the final decisions would be taken by the executive board, which would then have the responsibility of carrying out that policy and, in due time, of showing the

results of its decision. If it were found to be wrong, it would know that it would have to change its policy and if it were successful it would receive accordingly the commendation of the council.
B.O.A.C. has tended to set up a rather over-centralised, and therefore top-heavy, organisation of the inverted pyramid type, but this new proposal would give a much more flexible, democratic, and lively type of organisation than the kind into which we have seen in some nationalised undertakings developing so far. British European Airways are working away from this top-heavy conception and have a smaller body of people in control, with functional directors in charge of departmental responsibilities. It would be a good thing, perhaps, to bring one or two part-time directors on to the kind of board I have described. Full statistical information which B.E.A. are already providing is required by a small executive type of board such as I have indicated, because they are then kept fully knowledgeable, without a large staff to tell them all that is happening from the statistics which are readily available to them for daily consideration.
It must become a vital principle to these big organisations to centralise their policy making and de-centralise executive responsibility. Therefore, I suggest that both Corporations should give to their line or division managers full responsibility to produce the maximum results on their own initiative. Give them autonomy and give them the job of making their own profits. Under a system of budgetary control, give them the opportunity of knowing what the results are. After they have carried out the policy of the Corporation, let them work towards a profit, even, for their separate departments. They should become cost-conscious and, if not profit-seeking, let them consider the need to make a profit as an indication of a standard of success.
My hon. Friend may be considering this suggestion, but I do not see why line managers could not be on the boards of control. If the boards of governors are to continue to be made up as they are now, I do not think they can give a great deal of confidence, as there has been too much of a tendency for people to bounce in at the top instead of working their way through from the bottom. B.O.A.C. are


lagging far behind B.E.A. and they would do well to consider the principles of management towards which B.E.A. are developing.
I hope I am wrong, but I think this is so—I would be the first to recognise early examples of B.O.A.C. making a success— I do not believe that the present management, judging by mistakes still being made, is really competent in its work. I think there is too great disparity between the two Corporations. When Ralph Damon joined Trans-World Airlines, within a year he turned an eight million dollar loss into a profit. With other men at the top of B.O.A.C, something similar would be possible in a short space of time. I do not think we have to work gradually to an elimination of the losses, but that can be done quickly if the right methods are employed.
We have the right type of aircraft and the staff of the Corporations has been cut some 4,000 employees—which is some indication that the criticisms levelled in the early years of the last Parliament from this side of the House, and possibly from the other side as well, have been justified. We have advocated many things in the past. Earlier criticism was levelled at the retention of the United States and Canadian bases which we said should be closed down. That was not done anything like quickly enough or we would have saved a lot of dollars. We advised cutting out the deadwood in the organisation, but I think there is more deadwood still to be cut out. We have suggested for a long time—and I think it extremely important—that the technical competence of B.O.A.C. should be greatly improved.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was with me on a visit to Hum when we saw what was being done by B.O.A.C. when they were introducing into service the new Hermes aircraft. The complaint generally from the staff was that they had not had any of these aircraft soon enough "to get the bugs out of them" and then to go straight into the service with every confidence that there would be no breakdown due to early technical failures. Instead of that, all the aircraft were bought together and the whole fleet was put into service with insufficient time having been allowed for the elimination of the snags which were bound to occur. If they had first procured two aircraft and tried them out on

the routes, they could have eliminated the technical snags, and then ensured that those technical details were put right in the whole fleet before all the machines were put into service.
I had some personal contact with the results of this unfortunate policy when returning from Nigeria. I was due to come back on a certain date and had to transfer from a B.O.A.C. to a K.L.M. aircraft. The Hermes was still encountering difficulties and delays on the route. It may be all right now but at that time the position was most unfortunate. The methods B.O.A.C. employ at present for ordering new aircraft are unfortunate. They have a technical director who was in the R.A.F., where he was mainly concerned with signals, a deputy-chairman and an assistant technical director. I do not think any of them have the exhaustive technical requirements that civil airline operation requires to ensure that these blunders do not continue.
With regard to the Comet, it is a pity that B.O.A.C. have ordered 12 of these new aircraft without first trying them out on the routes. It is so vastly different from the way in which B.E.A.C. are introducing their Viscounts. B.E.A.C. first had two, and when they found that the Viscount 630 was not just what they required, they were able, after trying it out on various routes, to order 28 Viscount 700s with confidence because they knew that they had done the necessary tests and that most of the snags would be eliminated before the full fleet was put on to the routes.
I would ask the Corporations to consider these annual debates as a kind of shareholders' meeting; and that if criticisms are made they should take full and fair notice of them, with the feeling that such criticisms are put forward with a constructive intention and not merely to cause difficulties for the Corporations. I would ask B.O.A.C, in particular, to try and adopt this attitude because their present attitude is so different from that of B.E.A.C. I put forward what I hoped were useful suggestions to the Chairman of B.O.A.C. towards the end of last year. He was good enough to write back and say:
I much appreciate your interest in B.O.A.C, but I would respectfully suggest that you could far better exercise your concern by addressing yourself to what I would regard as current problems, rather than raking up matters that are so many years old.


I did not believe, when I was referring to appointments, that if those appointments were still having an unfortunate effect because of unsuitability they could be considered to be outdated matters. When the Chairman of B.O.A.C. was with Morris Motors, he adopted a similar attitude. When the policy of one of the motoring journals in regard to petrol tax policy was different from his own, he requested them to look at things from his point of view. He is doing the same now in regard to the aviation journals. It is not a helpful attitude if an attempt is made to try to curb public criticism. Let us be frank and face up to the problems on a factual basis. If we do that and then try to solve those problems, I am sure that the future of our civil aviation will be really something worth looking forward to.

Air Commodore Harvey: On a point of order. May I offer my apologies to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to the House. I had every intention of declaring my small interest in civil aviation but in following the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock), I forgot. I wish humbly to apologise.

7.14 p.m.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: I think that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. G. Cooper) has made an excellent and interesting speech. If he will forgive me I do not intend to follow him in all the points he made, but he did at one time refer to the necessity of cutting out dead wood, namely running our Corporations as efficiently as possible, and I have here some rather interesting comparisons. The American airlines consider that an annual utilisation of their aircraft of about 3,000 hours is necessary. I find that in B.E.A.C. the annual utilisation is only 1,320 hours. That is one element that can quite clearly be improved. Looking at the figures of staff in comparison with those of Trans-Canada Air Lines, for example, B.E.A.C, flying rather less than twice the mileage of Trans-Canada Air Lines, who fly 16,364,000 miles whereas B.E.A.C. average about 30 million miles, have rather more than four times the staff of Trans-Canada Air Lines. That is a point which should be looked into.
We all agree that we want to see the British Corporations doing as well as they

possibly can. A number of Members on both sides of the House have said that, and I also wish to emphasise the point. Those Corporations are, after all, part of British aviation—not the only part but a very essential one—and we all want to see them doing well. That does not mean to say that we on this side of the House think that the arrangement that has been made is necessarily the best one, or that when we get into power, which I hope will not be very long from now, we may not take measures to alter it.
The Foreign Secretary took a great interest in the introduction of the Civil Aviation Act. I find that he was Minister of Transport in the 1929–31 Government, and he wrote a book entitled "Socialisation and Transport." I was rather interested in it, and I have had the book for a long time. I found in it the following paragraph, which is of particular interest:
Transport is or ought to be a very live and adaptable industry. It has intimate contact with the public. It is important that it should be quick to respond wherever possible to public wishes and desires; nay more, that it should anticipate them before they become vocal.
I was interested to find that the right hon. Gentleman had written that because when I read very carefully through his speech on the Second Reading of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, I found that he scarcely mentioned the public at all. The main tenor of his speech was directed towards proving the case for nationalising airlines. He did quote a speech that he made in Canada when he said:
It is up to the nationalisers to prove their case that there will be public advantage by nationalisation. It is no less up to the anti-nationalisers to prove their case, that the public interest can best be served by private ownership.
We on this side of the House really approach the matter from an entirely different standpoint. The first task of British civil aviation is to serve the public, and to that end it must be safe, efficient and cheap. It is far too expensive today for the ordinary man in the street. Furthermore, it must look after its employees and treat them well. Apart from those considerations I do not think it matters whether it is publicly or privately owned; whichever does that job best is the most important consideration.
The Government, however, set up by that Act two great monopolies—or rather


three at that time. At the time when the Act was being considered, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) gave a warning drawn from the time of Ancient Rome, about which Gibbon wrote these words of the giant Corporations which grew up at the time when Rome was becoming decadent:
The improvements so easily grasped by the competition of freedom are admitted with slow and sullen reluctance in these proud corporations above the fear of a rival and below the confession of an error.
I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary has heard that phrase before, but it is a fact that that danger is always inherent in a monopoly, especially a monopoly backed by a Government. Monopolies tend to become—they do not necessarily become—complacent and in-tolerant of criticism. They do not easily allow improvement. They tend to maintain inefficiency in that way, and they also tend to give more costly service to the consumer. I quite agree that there are sometimes some reasons for setting up monopolies in transport, particularly on routes which are likely to be uneconomic and in respect of which it may be necessary to pay a subsidy.
There is some mitigation in respect of these air monopolies that we have undertaken. As several hon. Members have said, there is a good deal of competition from foreigners which B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have to face. Moreover there is a very good executive staff, and I think that B.E.A. are particularly lucky in Mr. Peter Masefield. He does a great deal to keep that Corporation efficient. But even with efficiency and cheapness one cannot get away from the fact that competition is the best spur, the best possible way to keep down prices. I submit that in aviation we cannot neglect any spur to efficiency or any new development where there is still so much to learn, and so far to go.
I personally have been more or less brought up with aviation. The first flight in Great Britain was made in the year I was born, and I have held a flying licence for something like 24 years. I have seen some fairly big changes in aircraft, one way and another. The general lesson I have learned, is that one must not be dogmatic in one's approach to aviation. Above all one must never say, "We know all there is to know," or that

a group of people know all there is to know. You may remember, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that there was a book written between the wars, called, "The Great Delusion." The tenor of this book was that flying never could be made economical; it never could be made to pay; and I must say that for a long time it looked to me as if that was true.
But there was one very enterprising aircraft company, which is still flourishing today, the De Havilland Aircraft Company, who built what was really the first economical aircraft, the De Havilland Fox-Moth. It carried four passengers and a pilot and had an engine of 120 horse power. Still better, they built a double aircraft of that kind, the De Havilland Dragon. That was ordered by a man who understood competition in transport, Mr. Hillman, who used to run buses. He drew a picture on a bit of paper and said, "I want an aircraft like this." The De Havilland Aircraft Company developed and improved it—this was in 1933—and the De Havilland Rapide came into being. This aircraft was so good that it is still in use today on some internal air lines. I submit that that aircraft would never have been produced if we had depended on a State Corporation for development.
Before the war I did not much like the monopoly which Imperial Airways presented. It showed a reluctance to advance, for one reason or another. But in those days it was still possible to run an airline without incurring the penalty of a £5,000 fine, or two years in prison. After all, Imperial Airways was successfully challenged by British Airways and eventually British Airways had to be given a subsidy. During the war, as we know, they were amalgamated. Now we have a monopoly which is firmer than ever. The spokesmen of the Government say they want to encourage, and even to help our charter services. But in reality the Minister of Civil Aviation seems to be more intent on making the Corporations unassailable and to be helping them virtually to wreck their potential rivals.
I would give one example of that. In January, 1949, the Minister issued a directive which did a lot to torpedo the future of independent operators. There were about six provisions in this directive which really were wrecking provisions.


First of all, scheduled services were normally to be undertaken by the Corporations. Second, independent operators should be counted only as associates to the Corporations as an interim measure. If they undertook services they would receive no subsidies. Third, fares should not be less than those charged by the Corporations. Fourth, the associated agreement would not normally exceed two years. Fifth, in general it was only in respect of internal journeys and cross-country services and internal seasonal services.

Mr. Beswick: The noble Lord has accused my noble Friend of wrecking the charter industry by issuing this directive in 1949. Would the hon. Member say in what way private charter operators were penalised after that directive more than they were penalised before?

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Take one thing alone, that fares should not be less than those charged by the Corporations. In this matter alone, they could not undercut the Corporations.

Mr. Beswick: Would it surprise the noble Lord to know that before that directive was issued it was not possible for the private operators to engage in scheduled operations at all? It was in fact an entirely new field of operations which was opened up to them as a result of this directive.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: It was even worse if they could not do it before. That simply confirms it.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: It was not opened up.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamikon: The
sixth condition was the putting of power into the hands of the Minister that these conditions might be varied by the Minister from time to time.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: Sabotage.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: The Minister indicated the other day that he was a "watch dog" for the taxpayer, he looked after the taxpayer's money. I would give one example of what happened when the Nigerian Government wanted a service between this country and the Colony. Lord Milverton, the Governor, wanted an adequate service to Kano. A charter company was approached

which had suitable aircraft to run a service. There was no expense involved to the taxpayer on either side. However, this was not allowed, and one of the Corporations, I think it was B.O.A.C., put on aircraft obviously unsuitable. It has been alleged that each flight cost the taxpayer £10,000. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would confirm that, but I think the Minister is some "watch dog," if that is the type of thing he is doing. That is a waste of public money to the benefit of no one.
Surely there are plenty of services which could be usefully done by independent operators, like a service in the summer to Corsica, where there is a season of three or four weeks, or to Majorca, where the Corporation do not necessarily want to operate. And why should not they charge cheap fares and thereby allow people to fly who are not quite so wealthy instead of having to charge fares not less than those charged by the Corporations? I think the Corporation rates are too high anyway. When he was Minister, Lord Swinton implied in several statements that the nationalised Corporations would undertake charter work only if it was outside the capacity of charter companies. We know the story—it has already been quoted by several hon. Members—of the Food Corporation, and how by the intervention of B.O.A.C. they got the charter at approximately 10 per cent. more than Huntings, an independent operator, were prepared to quote.
The fact remains that today civil aviation companies see so little future ahead of them that they are selling aircraft abroad, and at very good prices, because there is a high demand. I want to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can tell me how many aircraft from charter companies have been sold abroad during the last year, and whether the President of the Board of Trade is keeping an eye on it? At this stage it is very important that we should not allow transport aircraf to go abroad.
The importance of charter companies is immense. Several hon. Members have drawn attention to this. I do not think, however, that anyone has mentioned the Berlin airlift, where charter companies provided no fewer than 42 four-engined aircraft, and received great praise from the commodore in charge. Charter aircraft are also important in other things; for


defence, co-operation with searchlights and anti-aircraft.
I should like to know if B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. are serious about not wanting to enter the charter trade. They have representatives now at the Baltic Exchange and, through that exchange, the independent charter companies have built up a considerable business. In another place the other day Lord Douglas indicated that these agents were there only to obtain freights for the Corporations. I have the greatest respect for Lord Douglas as an Air Force Officer. He was once my commander-in-chief. I should not like to contradict him, but if he examines the amount of business that these agents have got for the Corporations, he might give a different answer.
Above all, the Corporations must not be considered sacrosanct. They must not be protected from competition. We want the most efficient aviation that we can get. Ultimately, what we want is controlled competition. I agree that there should be an element of Government control in aviation. We want something like the Civil Aeronautics Board in America. It is tragic that aviation should become the plaything of party politics. Everyone interested in civil aviation should try to ensure that at all costs we get the best kind of aviation that we can achieve.
The Corporations have been most unfortunate with the British aircraft they have selected. First, there was the Tudor and then the Brabazon and the Princess flying boat. I should like to ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary or his noble Friend has considered offering the Brabazon to independent operators to see if they would take on trans-Atlantic services. I know that the Corporation will not do that; but it is a tragedy, when we have spent so much money and effort on these great aeroplanes, that the world should not see them and have an opportunity of flying in them.
The hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) spoke for a long time about flying boats. I heartily agree with him. I am very much in favour of flying boats. Again, it is tragic that we have, for the time being, let our flying boats go. Fortunately, the Air Force have been able to take over the Princess flying boats. It is most important to this country that we

should not lose the "know-how" of building and operating flying boats commercially. Those who have flown in them know that one can experience comfort and security as well as speed in transport.
Now we have our "white hope," the Comet. I believe that there may be some difficulties With the Comet. In the high altitude flying which it will undertake there is a danger that we may find that the engines will ice up in certain conditions, and there may be difficulty in getting down to base. The Comet normally flies above the weather, but the pilot has to come through it eventually to get down to base. Research may be necessary to overcome the icing danger. We all hope that the Comet will be thoroughly successful.
The Parliamentary Secretary did not say very much about Scotland: in fact, I do not think that he said anything at all. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) said quite a lot about Prestwick. I was rather surprised to find from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Second Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill that the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Alex. Anderson) who is not in the House tonight, made a statement about Prestwick which he might correct in his own mind now. I always regarded him as a rather good Scotsman, but he defended Whitehall on this occasion. I do not want to make an issue of this between Whitehall and Scotland. He said:
In spite of the sneers against Whitehall, we must remember that we have in Prestwick an aerodrome which was but a small private flying club when war broke out, with a small amount of capital invested in it, and it has now been built up to international proportions by Whitehall, by community effort and by public funds. It would be a shame if any Government in this country were to return such a magnificent aerodrome to private enterprise."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 705.]
I should like to correct him. First, Prestwick was never a small private flying club. From the beginning it was an aerodrome which was training air crew for the Royal Air Force and which trained many hundred before the war started. Such a question as handing it back to private enterprise never arose, because at the end of the war the then owners of Prestwick offered it to a public corporation in Scotland. The impression the Government have given is that they just decided that they would take over Prestwick—


they have not done that even yet, but they merely decided to take it over—with scant recognition of the pioneer services rendered there.
That would not be quite so bad, but the Government still do not show a will to develop Prestwick as the national asset which it should be. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr spoke at length about Prestwick. I shall not weary the House by saying much more except that in the Clydesmuir Report there were two specific recommendations. One was that the Government should get on with the job of improving the runways and the aerodrome instead of waiting until 1953. The other was that they should encourage feeder services now. It said that it was in the interests of British aviation that they should do that.
The former Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Ivor Thomas, who some time ago saw sense and joined another party, said during the Committee stage of the Civil Aviation Bill that he was sure that the Minister for Civil Aviation, who was then Lord Winster, did not get up in the morning and say, "Now, let me see, what can we do to annoy Scotland?" He assured us that when he died, which he hoped would be a long way off, the word "Prestwick" would be engraved on his heart. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that he may not have done everything he could to annoy Scotland, but that the delay over Prestwick has done much to exacerbate national feeling in a way which was unnecessary.
Prestwick is important throughout Great Britain. I am not speaking in a narrow Scottish sense. Naturally, I want to see a national asset developed but Prestwick is important from the British national as well as from the Scottish point of view.

Mr. William Ross: The noble Lord mentioned two specific points. The first was about improving the runways. Has he been round Prestwick recently?

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: No,
Sir. Not for some time.

Mr. Ross: If he had been, he would have noticed that for nearly a month now men have been working on the runways.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: Knocking down the wall.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: I am very glad to hear it, but the last report was that they were doing nothing to enable really large aircraft to land until 1953.

Mr. Beswick: Would the noble Lord quote from the report?

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot find the actual paragraph which mentions 1953.

Mr. Manuel: I should like to clear up one point. The noble Lord mentioned feeder services. I agree that there ought to be feeder services. As far as I am aware, feeder services have been offered. Not one, but nine feeder services have been offered and they simply will not operate them.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: There are too many strings.

Mr. Manuel: Too many strings. We have a right to say that there should be good conditions for people who fly. The other point I should like to make, if I could have less interruption from the Front Bench, is about the question of taking over. I think that there should be some consideration of the amount of invested capital in Prestwick. Does the noble Lord know what the figure is against the total outlay which was necessary to bring Prestwick up to its present standard?

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: I would point out that the owners of Prestwick offered to hand the whole thing over to a public utility corporation, and I submit that that is the correct thing to do with Prestwick.
I want now to say a word or two about Scottish services. The Foreign Secretary made some very specific promises in regard to Scotland. He said this:
Civil aviation cannot exclusively be organised on a needlessly restricted basis, for, far from being local in character, it is international and worldwide in its operations. Clearly, therefore, it would be unwise to establish a separate autonomous airways corporation for Scotland with its own external services, and to establish one confined to Scotland would be to give Scotland a less complete and less efficient service, and would, in addition, inevitably be uneconomical in management and operation. Having said that, in


which I think I shall carry the general assent of the House, I would add that, nevertheless, my noble Friend, the Minister of Civil Aviation is not only willing, he is indeed most anxious, to make special provision for Scottish needs and requirements, and to take the fullest account of Scottish sentiment and feeling, for which His Majesty's Government have always the highest regard and respect."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 610–11.]
What happened? The first thing that happened was the Scottish pioneer who built up the services in the North of Scotland was sacked, and a protest meeting which was held in Inverness was simply ignored. The next thing that happened was that the services became worse than they were before the war. The fares were raised, and Scottish personnel were actually driven abroad to run air services in Greece. The Corporation failed to develop the new services which were required, and yet now we are told that, before the war, the whole of the internal air services of Great Britain took a subsidy of £100,000, when Scotland had better services then than it has today. Now we are told that, in 1948–49, the loss on these services was £2,763,000, and that Scotland's services were responsible for a third of that loss; in other words, for a loss of £921,000. It would have paid the Government if they had paid a Scottish Corporation £500,000 a year and allowed Scotland to run its own air services.
Here is the quotation, for which I was asked a few minutes ago, from the Clydesmuir Report. It is in chapter 9, paragraph 66 (a):
The criticisms which in the main come into that category are as follows. It is part of the Ministry's policy that this plan for the development of the airport should not be put in hand before 1953 at the earliest.
Surely, as far as Scotland is concerned, this again is a case of public money being wasted and no one benefiting, particularly in Scotland.

Mr. Beswick: Surely, if the noble Lord takes the interest in such matters which I expect he does, he will know that we made a statement subsequent to the publication of that Report, and that in that statement we said that we were proposing to make this runway long enough for modern aircraft?

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: I have not got that statement with me. This Report has only been published this year; in fact, it is only just published.

Mr. Beswick: This is a Report from a committee which made certain recommendations. Since they were published, I have made a statement in this House, and my noble Friend has made a statement in another place, and, in that statement, we did say which of these runways we proposed to extend. If the noble Lord follows these matters with the care that I imagine he would take, he would see that there will be a runway sufficiently long to take the heaviest aircraft before 1953.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: I am very glad to hear that, but it is only one runway at Prestwick, and I believe I am also right in saying that one Corporation—B.O.A.C.—made repeated representations for Prestwick to be improved. I am very glad to hear that things are being done, and I hope it will be completed in 1953. It is certainly high time it was done.
Returning to the subject of the Scottish services, with which I was dealing, we have the greatest confidence in the crews, who are excellent, as they are throughout the whole of the Corporations, although the northern part of the organisation is getting a bit thin. I have heard of passengers being brought out of an aircraft at a northern aerodrome in order to lift the tail of the aircraft on a trestle, because there were not enough ground crew available. At another time, one hears the story of there being far too many ground crew, and not enough work for them to do. I am not exactly complaining of these matters, but one of the more pleasant features of flying today is provided by the very smart young ladies who attend to one's every need while on board the aircraft. They are extremely efficient young women, and it may be that it is thought that we do not appreciate them fully in Scotland, but the fact is that these young ladies get out when the aircraft lands at Edinburgh and are never seen any further north. It may be that that is due to reasons of economy, but it is the case.
What we need in developing aviation in Scotland is the provision of air lines to areas on the west coast, which is not completely depopulated yet. There are still quite a lot of people who can virtually only be reached by one of three methods—by helicopter, by flying boat or by means of the tremendous cost of


making new airstrips. The obvious way would be to develop flying boat services, but it may be many years before that comes about, although I hope it will be possible. We could have flying boat services from Ullapool to Skye, from Tobermory to Oban, and another along the Caledonian Canal.
Furthermore, a little imagination could be used to develop an airmail service on the west coast, in which helicopters would be very helpful. One way of running the airmail service would be by using a similar device to that used during the war and consisting of a kind of football post to which the mailbags are attached and from which they can be picked up by the aircraft. However, these things are not likely to be undertaken for the time being. But I think that we would get far better results from a policy of decentralisation. If we can decentralise control to Scotland, we should enjoy much better results north of the Border. We have an advisory committee whose chairman never ceases in his eulogies of the Corporation, on which he also has a seat, but we do not think that that is really very satisfactory. We want actual control in Scotland, not general advice.
I now want to say a word about the pilots and those engaged in private flying. To a nation's aviation, small plane flying is in the same relationship as small boat sailing is to a navy, and I think it is just as important. It is very important that we should have as many people as possible who know what it is like to fly an aeroplane. People who are flying today fly rather like sheep, herded from one point to another and finally into an aircraft, and then, at the other end, being herded again out of the aircraft through the immigration, Customs and so on, eventually to the bus which takes them home. There is nothing like actually flying an aeroplane on one's own. We have not, so far, been very successful in this country in encouraging that.
The Petrol Duty was mentioned by another hon. Member. I can see no real justification for charging that duty on petrol used in a private aircraft when it is not charged on the fuel used in flying club aircraft. A man can hire an aeroplane from a flying club without having to pay the duty, but he has to pay if he

uses his own machine. That, to my mind, is a quite untenable position. The result is—and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to bear this point in mind—that, compared with America, we lag far behind. After all, aviation, both to us and America, is one of the most important things today.
In America there are 550,000 flying licences, private or commercial, held by people actually practising flying. In this country, the number is something just over 7,000. This means that in America, with its enormous population, one person in every 320 is a pilot, whereas in this country the ratio is only one in every 6,200. That is a point we ought earnestly to consider with a view to giving every possible encouragement to aviation. There is no doubt that people in this country would fly if they could do so at reasonably cheap rates.
Hon. Members may remember that before the war there was a scheme called the Civil Air Guards Scheme, under which a person could fly for half a crown an hour. It only operated for one year, but during that time there were 10,600 effective members who had some kind of flying training. Of that number, no fewer than 7,030 served during the war as air crews in the Royal Air Force or in the Fleet Air Arm, and 2,000 on ground duties. I think that was a good investment and a cheap way of getting a reserve of pilots. We know that in this country we have the best designers of aircraft in the world if they are given the chance, and that we have the best workmen and the best air crews. It should be the greatest endeavour of all of us, on whichever side of the House we sit, to do our utmost to see that we in this country are always in the vanguard of air development.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Pargiter: I trust that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not follow him in the ramifications of the Scottish air services. The only comment I would make is that while he appears to be regretting the amount of the subsidies paid to the Corporation, we should need, practically, to double them if we were to do all that he wants done for Scotland. He suggested the use of helicopters for picking up a few letters from an island here or there, and said that that was


something for the future. I should imagine it would be some time in the very far distant future before that sort of thing was possible.
The noble Lord also referred to the great "monopolies" and to competition. I think it is entirely wrong to refer to the two Corporations as monopolies in the normal sense of the word. It is true that with regard to internal lines they may have some monopolistic power, but there is certainly nothing monopolistic about them with regard to the international lines. In fact, it seems to me that they get all the competition they want from virtually every other country in the world, and that there is adequate incentive to keep the Corporations doing their job. Generally speaking, I think that the Corporations are to be congratulated upon the progress they have made.
We all agree that there are a good many things that need to be done, but, in the main, the Corporations are moving along the right lines, and I am very much in favour of the system of budgetary control which B.E.A. have introduced. I believe that such control enables an undertaking to keep a check on its costs from time to time. It means that no particular department or section can spend money for which it has not budgeted without some central authorisation for so doing. By that means, it tends to keep the machines under some measure of proper control. Indeed, budgetary control is something which commends itself in many directions, quite apart from civil aviation. I think it is a system which should be widely adopted. It is, in fact, already being used in some businesses.
In dealing with the question of charter companies, one hon. Member complained that B.O.A.C. did not debit themselves with the overhead costs of business transacted on their behalf by charter companies. I do not see why they should. I understand that the position of B.O.A.C. in regard to those matters is that they actually make a handling charge of 2½ per cent. There are very few organisations which work on only a 2½ per cent. handling charge. Such a charge seems to me to be entirely reasonable, and one which could not possibly be reduced, and charter companies ought not to feel that they are being badly treated when charged that very small amount.

Mr. John Grimston: The complaint was that when B.O.A.C. themselves undertook charter work they did not, in quoting the price, charge themselves with overheads.

Mr. Pargiter: It seems to me that if they are taking on charter work, or work which is comparable to charter work and which is outside what they perhaps regard as their normal function, they are entitled to operate on the same basis as a charter company. In other words, they charter to themselves. That seems to me to be perfectly fair and proper. To do it the other way round would mean that the overheads elsewhere would be less if they charged more in another place. In order to work under conditions comparable to the charter companies, the Corporation ought to make charges for purposes of book-keeping which are comparable to those of the charter companies. That appears to be what they do, and to be perfectly fair.
A good deal of opposition was expressed some time ago by hon. Members opposite to the merging of British South American Airways with B.O.A.C. There certainly does not appear to be any continuing criticism of that, and, on the whole, it appears that the Government did the right thing, because that merging has reduced the general overheads of the Corporation to the benefit of civil aviation and to the Corporation as a whole.
I could not quite follow the reference made by one hon. Member to the question of the use of the Comet. Quite frankly, I am in favour of the most rapid development possible of the Comet, because it seems to me that this is the one aircraft of ours which is so far ahead of any of our competitors that it gives us a real fighting chance to get on top of the world so far as civil aviation is concerned. A reference was made to the icing-up of engines at high altitudes. I should have thought that with the intense heat which a jet engine develops and with its special system of circulation, there was very little likelihood of its icing-up under any conditions one could possibly visualise. I should certainly have thought that that would be a matter the designers would be taking care of, and probably they have taken care of it. I do not think we need worry very much about jet engines icing-up at high altitude.
I believe that the Comet is still the best answer for the future of our civil aviation. In the meantime I hope we shall not have too many changes of aircraft. It is obvious that we have suffered very considerably in the past from the changes that have been made in aircraft. I understand that when we change over from one type of aircraft to another it costs on an average about £10,000 to train a single crew in the use of a new machine. This is a staggering figure, but it is an ascertainable figure. Therefore, it seems that the fewer changes we have between now and the time when the Comet comes into service the better; and the sooner we have the Comet in circulation the less will be the ultimate cost of such change-over as will have to take place.
I should like to have some information about development at London Airport in connection with the transfer of the Northolt services there. I believe that at one period last year Northolt was handling more aircraft than London Airport, although London Airport was then pretty busy. If the change-over from Northolt to London Airport is made, will it be possible for London Airport to take over all the Northolt services on the basis of the present site, or is it visualised that it will not be possible to take over all these services until development on the north side of the Bath-road is completed? This is important as it has a bearing on the future plans of local authorities in the area. I believe that the change-over is to take place within a very limited time, and we should like some assurance that the airport as now planned will be sufficient for that purpose without any extension.
I should also like my hon. Friend to give attention to the problem of minimising the considerable noise made by low flying aircraft in the vicinity of London Airport. Throughout the area adjoining the airport there are constant complaints from people about their sleep being disturbed and their children upset. I know that it does not seem that very much can be done about it at the moment, but that is not much comfort to those who live in the vicinity and who suffer badly from the noise of aircraft taking off and landing. I hope the Minister is giving constant attention to this problem of the elimination of noise. It is a problem worthy of the highest possible scientific investigation.
Reference has been made in the debate to Post Office rates far carrying mail. It has been alleged that the Post Office authorities are grasping people with a mailed fist who say "We pay this," whether or not that payment represents a fair rate. Presumably the Post Office pays a fair economic rate. The Post Office rate certainly cannot be compared with the American rate which is a hidden subsidy to aircraft. As far as Britain is concerned the question is whether we pay a subsidy openly or pay it secretly by paying high rates for carrying Government traffic. It seems to me much better that the Corporation should do the job at an economic rate and then if we had to pay a subsidy on top of that, it would be within the control of the House and we would know what we are doing. The American method of concealing the subsidy by paying high rates for Government traffic is the wrong method. I very much prefer that it should be done in a way which would show how we are spending the taxpayers' money.
It would be a thousand pities if the rearmament programme were allowed to interfere in any way with the development of civil aviation and of civil aircraft. That kind of thing can well happen. When we appreciate the extent to which the civil aircraft industry in this country suffered as a result of the change-over to war types during the war it is vitally important that we should not allow that kind of thing to happen again. If we do we shall have to go through precisely the same phase after re-armament is completed as we have been going through during the last five or six years, a phase from which we have only just emerged. The Minister should stand firm on the requirements of civil aviation and see that those requirements are not submerged in the needs of defence. There must be a balance between the two needs so that the development of civil aviation is not stifled.
I believe the Corporations have made good progress. Although they have not done all that we would have liked them to have done they deserve the general congratulations of the House upon their very sincere efforts to reduce the cost of civil aviation to the nation during the last year. It is to their credit that they have partly succeeded and I wish them luck in the future.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Aitken: I have a personal interest in the debate to which the Minister would do well to listen very carefully because I represent the ordinary fare-paying passenger whom I have not heard mentioned this afternoon. During the last five years I think I have travelled over 300,000 miles by air in various parts of the world in the aircraft of about 20 different airlines, so I am a connoisseur of the services that airlines provide for their passengers.
I should like to refer briefly to comfort, which affects the passenger very much indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo) referred to safety and price as important factors affecting airlines. I would put comfort very high on the list, and particularly comfort on the ground. It is perfectly obvious that a good deal of thought and attention are paid to comfort in the air. As one changes from Yorks to Constellations, the first thing one notices is the enormous increase in comfort, but I am concerned with what happens when one lands at the airport.
A few weeks ago I flew from London to Nigeria. The first stop is Tripoli either very early in the morning or late in the afternoon. It is a very important airport and I believe that the comfort of passengers arriving there is the responsibility of the Minister. The first thing that strikes one is the dirt and squalid discomfort of that very important airport. They are something which have to be seen to be believed. Comparing Castel Benito with a place like Trinidad, the most impressive thing I have seen in all my hours of flying has been the rest house which is provided at Trinidad.
Another impressive place is in Fiji which is the responsibility primarily of Commonwealth Pacific Airlines. In Fiji the first thing that strikes one is the coolness and spaciousness of the lounge to which passengers are taken. Every passenger is very curious about the country in which he arrives. One gets a great sense of relief and pleasure on getting out of an aircraft in a strange country. It is an impressive thing to get out of an arero-plane and go to a clean and comfortable place where a good deal of imagination and thought has gone into the décor and

the provision of comfort and food—perhaps indigenous food of the country in question.
The African Continent is unquestionably a flying area which one day will bring great profits to the successful airlines operating there. There is no doubt that when one travels in Africa one realises most of all what little thought, energy and imagination have gone into these places where passengers have to stop and rest while the aircraft refuels. I do not think it would be a good thing to advocate any vast, increased expenditure until the airlines are paying their way, but I do feel that it is practicable, with very little expenditure of money but a great expenditure of imagination and energy, to put some of these places into a condition so that passengers are delighted to land there and will remember those places as being connected with, say, B.O.A.C. or B.E.A.C.
Kano is an interesting place at which to land. It is a most dramatic part of Africa; it is a beautiful African city, but the airport, for a great international airport, is very much below the standard which we would like to see in B.O.A.C. operations. I call the Minister's attention to this fact because it gives one the impression of having been neglected. A good deal of thought and imagination have gone into the provision of comfort in the air, but in most parts of the world the dreariness and discomfort of landing places has gone on for several years.
I can see no great change in the conditions in a place like Khartoum in the last four or five years. It has rather dirty sanitary arrangements, the chairs are not particularly comfortable, and on one occasion I thought I detected the same broken down arm chair with the same beer stains which I knew in my R.A.F. mess during the war. It is evident that a lot of the furnishings and equipment of these places are left-overs from the Air Force or some other military installation in the area during the war.
It is high time that the Minister gave a good deal more thought and energy to these problems, because there is no doubt that the passengers are very much concerned. They remember with a good deal of pleasure any comfort which is provided when they alight from aircraft. Therefore, I hope the Minister will give some


indication that he intends to consider these matters and will stimulate a good deal more enterprise and imagination among the airlines concerned.

8.15 p.m.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: I am sorry I have had to leave the Chamber on several occasions since this debate started, but I have had a number of committees to attend. I was a little chary about opening my mouth until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton). He said a number of things which rather tickled my palate, either because I did not agree with them or because I did agree with them. There fore, it may be that my remarks will bear close relation to the course of his speech.
I should like to say how much I agree with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) in the topic which he chose. I hope next week to be arriving at the airport which he mentioned. I am fortunate enough to be going on the Gold Coast expedition, and I am sure that I shall carry throughout my life the memory of landing in a strange country. My own experience tells me that it is rather depressing to find oneself landing for the first time in a country where the aerodrome facilities are not all they should be.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Particularly in a tropical climate.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: That is so. I must confess that I had the same experience at Castel Benito as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. The armchairs which one saw were rather like cast-offs from an R.A.F. mess. They certainly could have been cleaned up a bit more. When we were taken out to the hotel in Tripoli, there was the general air of grubbiness which we left behind in this country several years ago.
We ought to give a warning from this House that we are not going to allow these great airports fall to the level of our railway stations in this country, which were so bad before we nationalised them. One of our biggest jobs is to raise them to the level of the railway stations in places like Cologne, and indeed all the great railway stations in Germany, and France. Our railway stations have always

appeared to be parts of the machinery instead of lovely buildings such as we see so often in various parts of the Continent. I have not been to America, but I believe the American railway stations are better even than the German and the Swiss. I hope the railway companies will take note of these remarks. I certainly hope the airway Corporations will not let their airports become like our railway stations.
The debate started with a shower of congratulations to the two Corporations, and I thought those congratulations were deserved. The great efforts that both Corporations have made in the last few years to try to reach that level of efficiency where their outgoings approach their incomings have been a great achievement. It seems to me that with a bit of juggling which would be permissible in a private company, B.E.A. would now have been breaking even. When I say "juggling," I do not mean financial juggling of an embezzling kind. I refer to the adjustment of things like mail freights. If B.E.A.C. had the same international air freight rates from the G.P.O. as the American airlines get, a great part of their deficit would be wiped out without any great effort on their part. I believe the figure would be about 20 per cent. If the English taxpayers, especially in my part of the world which is not fed by an airline service, did not have to pay for the Scottish airlines, there would be another 20 per cent. saving in the finances of the Corporation. That makes a saving of 40 per cent.
The next question concerns petrol. It is true that some of us were keen to get a saving in tax for the private flier, and the flying clubs have already benefited; but if that saving were also allowed to the Corporations, it seems from the figures which we have heard tonight that B.E.A.C. would save another 20 per cent. on their deficit and would be getting near the breaking-even point. I think that the feeling of the House is that these matters should be considered. It seems to me that the G.P.O. could well stand paying the proper internationally recognised rate for mail freight. The Corporations should benefit from it. In any case, the loss which the Corporations make by not receiving that payment has to be borne by the general body of the taxpayers, so that this is really one of those accounting procedures which should be examined. The Parliamentary Secretary


should have the full support of the House in any arguments which he may have with the Post Office authorities. The same argument applies in the case of petrol.
Again, the question of the Scottish airlines should be examined more closely. If the same service could be given by private charter companies, then that proposition should be examined if it would mean that taxpayers in my part of the world would save money. In fact, I doubt whether any charter companies could do the job because, as I see it, the charter companies are rather like the private hauliers in the road transport industry, who are quite prepared to use the roads for which the general taxpayer pays so long as they make a profit and deny it to the nationalised undertaking. In the same way, we have expensive aerodromes and all the landing facilities paid for by the general taxpayer, so that this question does not provide a fair basis of competition between the nationalised undertaking and the charter companies.

Mr. John Grimston: It is, of course, part of the case of the charter company flyers that they are ready to pay exactly the same landing fees as the Corporations.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: There is something more than landing fees involved, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There is the whole organisation for air transport, just as the upkeep of the Great North Road makes that road available for any transport which goes on it. There is no special payment taken from a man on the Great North Road because he happens to have a licence or from another man because he is running long-distance transport from Newcastle to London. Nevertheless, we are shareholders of this undertaking and we should know the full facts.

Mr. Ross: Could my hon. and gallant Friend think of any charter company which would be prepared to run an ambulance unit to the Western Isles, to take about 300 patients—as the undertaking did last year—and do it for nothing?

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: No; of course, I cannot think of any company which would do that. In my view the claims for the charter companies are just as "phoney" as are those for the hauliers against the nationalised road

undertaking. Nevertheless, it is a little unfair on the taxpayers of Norfolk, who have no airlines to serve them, to have to pay subsidies for airlines to the West of Scotland, and I hope the position can be examined. I hope that by the time we have the next General Election I shall be able to deal with the argument of any man who comes to me and says, "I am a taxpayer. I know that whether airlines are publicly or privately owned there must be a subsidy in one way or another to keep them going in places like the Western Isles, but I am not interested in the prestige of these airlines. We know that airlines to those areas cannot be run at a profit whether they are publicly owned or privately owned, but the point is that I just do not want them to be run if it has to be done at my expense."

Mr. Rankin: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for giving way. I forgive him for using a good, old-fashioned Tory argument, but I should like him to make this clear: is he in favour of withdrawing the ambulance services which are run to the Western Isles of Scotland?

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: No; I am not in favour of withdrawing them. I am simply throwing into the pool of argument the ideas which these people are expressing. I am merely putting forward the case which these taxpayers will make and allowing hon. Members to deal with the argument, even, if necessary, by sitting down and allowing one of my Scottish hon. Friends to put his argument, as he has done.
I will leave that point and turn to another. I have a feeling about air travel that it is all first-class and that there is no second or third-class. I have the feeling that the general masses of the community do not use air travel at all, and I should like to see a more democratic use of our airlines. It may be that schemes could be worked out even in present circumstances, where we know that airlines are making a loss, so that people who normally cannot afford the ordinary rates could be given an opportunity of becoming accustomed to air travel.
For instance, we have heard this afternoon that if B.E.A.C. used 75 per cent. of their capacity the whole time with the aircraft and the crews they have at present, they would break even. I hope I am correct in this figure; I am quoting


from memory what has been said. In those circumstances they would neither lose nor gain. That means that 25 per cent. of their seating is left. I should like to see some of it used to make our people air-minded and I should be more than pleased to see that done with the adults in the industrial areas. If it cannot be done with the adults, let us do it with some of the younger people who will live in a more air-minded age. I want to see the benefits of air travel spread more and more among those people with the smaller purses.
Of course, we on this side of the House have that as our aim, but I want to see some practical steps taken to bring it about in the near future, if possible. If there were a war, for instance, and flying boats were used to carry troops, then these people would be using air travel for the first time. They have not been able to afford air travel but in such a national emergency they would fly quite willingly to do their jobs. I hope that the Corporations and the Ministry will consider this problem.
We could help to make people more air-minded by sending those who work in the Corporations to speak in our towns and villages and tell others about their work. I should like to see some of the nice girls from the Scottish air routes, about whom we have heard, speaking to arts councils, in their uniforms, and telling people about their life, because at the moment their life is remote from the ordinary every-day existence of people in the great industrial areas. I want to see the ordinary people who make the engines meet and talk with the pilots; I want to see the ordinary people given a chance to meet the men who fly the machines, those who make the engines and, of course, these lovely hostesses.
I turn now to the question of the flying boats. This is no easy problem. We now know that the Princess flying boats are to be taken over by the R.A.F., yet we have this evening heard my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley) quite rightly putting the point of view of his constituents and bemoaning the fact that one of the activities of his port will be lost if the flying boats do not continue in the sphere of civil aviation. It seems to me that this is one of those long arguments

such as we so often have, especially in the military sphere—aircraft carriers or battleships or smaller craft or antisubmarine craft and so on.
There are pros and cons, but in this debate we have not had the whole case put before us so that we could know whether we are doing the right thing by the workers in Southampton and by the general community by permitting the flying-boats, which were such a wonderful idea when they were on the drawing board, to be lost altogether to the world of civil aviation. I believe one of the great difficulties was that they were over-taken by the Comet. They were not considered suitable for jet engines and it was felt, therefore, that they would be left behind in the world of modern aircraft. That was one of the arguments in the case against them. If that was a fact, we should be told about it. We ought to be able to give a reasonable answer to our constituents when they bring up this question of the great flying-boats.
One point I have to make is in connection with the statement made by a previous speaker and relating to my point about airmindedness. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey), one of the Government Whips and I are members of the Minister's Permanent Committee on Private Flying. We produced a report in the middle of 1947. Since we produced that report, the Committee has not met. It is about time that the Committee was summoned by the Minister. Conditions are different from what they were in 1947, when we produced our report. It seemed hopeless in that year when we were faced with a dollar shortage and a world situation of some gravity to procure any money for private flying. Part of the case which we put up for the revival of private flying in peace-time was that so many pilots and ground staff were produced who were able to do the job because they learned flying in the flying clubs before the war.
In 1947 there were still some flying clubs in existence which were not for the rich and one was the London Passenger Transport club. We met representatives from that club in order to make investigations about it. We found that the members paid 6d. per week and were able to learn to fly. Certain people were keen to fly and did fly, and that was one of


the objects of these clubs. There are other flying clubs which were not as lucky as the London Passenger Transport club. They had not got the membership and gradually they were being squeezed out.
In view of re-armament and the sums of money which have to be spent, we think that one of the best ways to spend a small portion of this money would be to help in the revival of the democratic flying clubs, so that ordinary working men and women throughout the country will learn to fly. I know that the R.A.F. at one time were against this. They held that high-speed aircraft could not be piloted by people who had been trained in that way or by gliding. We persuaded them to try gliding. In fact, some of their members in Germany got hold of German gliders and began to glide. In a year the R.A.F. found that they were getting better candidates from people who had done a bit of flying. The same could be said about those who had done a bit of dual control in Tiger Moths. We want people to learn in easy stages.
It would be worth while for the Ministry of Civil Aviation to have another go at the Air Ministry, who I am told are more amenable to persuasion in this matter of the flying clubs. We should have another go at the Chancellor now that we have a new one, and see whether we cannot get some of that money to keep our flying clubs going and encourage some of our younger people to go in for flying. The future is in the air, and our young people should be in the forefront, as were their fathers, who were amongst the first people to fly, and who even in our day have produced the Brabazon, the Comet, and jet aircraft. We want our young people to be ready to take their places when the time comes.

8.32 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I personally welcome the opportunity to point out to the House that we are very fortunate in that this is very largely a Scottish debate. I see opposite me the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Gilzean) and the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton). This shows you,

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that as a Scotsman you need not feel alone or solitary in the Chair tonight. Their presence shows that Scotland understands how important is the air to Scotland. When the war finished we had very high hopes of civil aviation. We saw many war aerodromes and the whole of Scotland covered with gentlemen and ladies in sky-blue. We thought that this was something that would be with us when the war was over.
We are a country with backward roads and a railway system relatively undeveloped, and we could see great opportunities in the air, which we looked upon as a blessing to Scotland. There was great disappointment in store for us. These hopes have not been realised. We have been told during the last six years that the State would do it for us. We regret to say that in Scotland we find the State cannot do it. We are of the opinion that if the aircraft industry had been left to private enterprise in Scotland, it might have done for us what was done for us in ship-building, textiles——

Mr. Ross: There is no aircraft industry in Scotland.

Sir W. Darling: —whisky and engineering. It has been a prime disaster that at this stage of development Scotland was not permitted to develop the aircraft industry. It might have happened had the State in 1945 not elected to take over the industry, that a flourishing aircraft industry under private enterprise might have developed in Scotland. If the State had stepped in when the first ship was built on the Clyde, there would have been no ship-building industry there today. Had the State stepped in when James Watt noticed that the kettle lid rattled when the steam came through, there would have been no steamship invention in Scotland. If there is any hon. Member who can upset that argument or give me fresh encouragement to believe something different, I shall be happy.
No aircraft are built in Scotland today. They build them in Belfast, in Southampton, in London, and indeed anywhere but in Scotland. We can have a repair and maintenance depot at Turnhouse, but Prestwick we pass idly by. I should like to have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that we shall have an aircraft industry in Scotland.


Free enterprise might have done it but is not permitted to do it. Whether we like it or not, we have pinned our colours to this somewhat doubtful nag, State Enterprise, and she is hopping very heavily along the road. We know Prestwick. What Ford's did to Dagenham, Scottish aviation might have done to Prestwick. Ford's were relatively free to develop their engineering enterprise, but Scottish Aviation, even with all the backing of public opinion, was never allowed to do it. I submit that the comparison is a valid one. Ford's have never come to Scotland, but I invite them to do so and if the hon. and learned Member who is showing such an interest in my speech has the key to the managing director's door, let him invite them to come to Scotland.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: What the hon. Gentleman is now saying defeats the whole argument that he is putting to the House.

Sir W. Darling: I do not see that it defeats my argument. I submit that Dagenham would not have been what it is today if Ford's had not gone there to develop it. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that there is no great difference between an engineering enterprise that manufactures motor cars and one that manufactures aircraft. Scottish Aviation had the genius, the capacity, the ability and the finance to develop Prestwick.

Mr. Ross: No.

Sir W. Darling: In my submission, they had. The State stepped in at Prestwick, but did not step in at Dagenham, where there is prosperity and free enterprise unbounded. At Prestwick there is decay.

Mr. Ross: How did the State step in at Prestwick? Scottish Aviation are still carrying on at Prestwick. No one has stopped them doing what they want to do.

Sir W. Darling: It is disappointing that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is so ill-informed. At one time the whole of Prestwick was controlled by Scottish Aviation. Today it is not all controlled by Scottish Aviation. I said that the State had stepped in. I will withdraw that, and say that the State bungled

in, blundered in, muddled in, stumbled in, at Prestwick.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether he is going to lead or mislead the House. First he is talking about aircraft construction and then about civil aviation. Let me remind him that before the war Scottish Aviation did not exist except as a weekend school. There was not even a runway at Prestwick; nothing at all. Everything that was built up at Prestwick was built with the taxpayers' money.

Sir W. Darling: I will leave the House to judge the value of that interruption. I will content myself by repeating the well-known fact—perhaps not as well known to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, as to the common folk of Scotland—that Prestwick was a national asset. In Edinburgh we had a few years ago the Scottish Council for Industry and Development, in which we agreed to concentrate on Prestwick as our national airport—not Turnhouse and not Renfrew but Prestwick for Scotland and Scotland for Prestwick. That was the view that we held, and the view that I would still hold.
I have come to the conclusion—the debate has not changed my view—that if it had not been for the intervention of the State in 1945 in Scottish Aviation we should have been entitled to expect the same development in aircraft manufacture in Scotland as we have seen in the motor car industry at Dagenham, shipbuilding on the Clyde and industrial progress in other fields of industry. It is a conjecture that the balance of advantage lies with me, because the fact is that the intervention of the State in the aircraft business in Scotland has sterilised it and reduced it to zero. Civil aviation in Scotland has been brought to a standstill under the operations of the State.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: This is all very interesting and sounds very romantic, but I speak as a mere Englishman. Why does not the hon. Gentleman get hold of a company like de Havilland's to float another company and set up a factory in Scotland, as they are doing in Australia and elsewhere?

Sir W. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Perhaps he would do something practical by undertaking to persuade the de Havilland or


any other company to go to Scotland knowing that in Scotland the State controls all civil aviation. He would at any rate gain the approbation of Scotsmen even if he lost favour on his Front Bench. I would draw to the attention of the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that she has a colleague who says that he can persuade de Havillands to go to Scotland.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: I did not say that.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Squadron Leader Kinghorn) was trying to tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), that the making of aircraft is not nationalised and is still under private enterprise and cannot be forced to go wherever one would want it to go.

Sir W. Darling: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth welcomes the assistance of the hon. Lady. I hope that the hon. Lady, in consultation, not too intimately, with her hon. and gallant Friend will find the answer to this question: why do aircraft manufacturers not come to Scotland? If Scotland is so attractive, what makes them so un-attracted? The answer is that the monopoly of civil aviation by His Majesty's Government makes it unattractive. If the hon. Lady, in consultation with her hon. and gallant Friend, can think of a better answer, they had better tell the people of Scotland. The fact remains that there is no aircraft industry in Scotland, and I give as the reason the fact that the Ministry of Civil Aviation has sterilised Prestwick.
The Scots are particularly air-minded, much more so than the people of England and Wales, and I have proof of that in the attendance tonight, for it is predominantly Scottish. It is because the Scots know that it is important for them that this new form of transport should be developed in Scotland. We set up the Scottish Tourist Board to attract tourists and the Scottish Development Council to attract traffic to Scotland and to make Scotland a venue and an attraction to His Majesty's Government and their civil aviation activities. We set up those organisations before the Lord President decided to have his Festival. We showed the Lord President that

we have a better way than the one he is following; we are not putting the cost of the Edinburgh Festival on English, Scottish and Welsh ratepayers but are paying our own losses.
The report of the British European Airways Corporation is a very well printed document; it is better printed than that of B.O.A.C. I do not know why the standardisation which exists elsewhere should have been departed from in this case. The report is typographically very attractive. I hoped to find that it was printed in Scotland, but I see that it was printed in Great Britain. May I ask, in passing, why we should not have the form of this report and accounts printed in the same way for both the Corporations? The facts are different, but I see no reason why, for ease of comparison, we should not have the two reports presented in the same fashion.
What is the outstanding fact of this report? [An HON. MEMBER: "Read it."] In spite of all the persiflage we have heard, all the discussion for and against, what is the fact? We have lost £1¼ million. That is the only salient fact. It would be more impressive if this House were not stunned—"deaved"as we call it in Scotland—with reports of losses in many Government undertakings. Only this afternoon we heard the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs telling us that his estimates of the Festival losses were out by nearly three-quarters of a million. An hour or two later we hear we have lost £1¼ million on British European Airways. Is there no end to this long tale, especially when we consider it in relation to industry? The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us to restrain our dividends because we are so prosperous, to curtail our profits because we are doing so well. Side by side we have this remarkable feature, that anything the State touches does nothing but lose millions. Is this one of those simple expressions that the ordinary businessman, come too late to politics, cannot comprehend?
But do not think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that British European Airways are disappointed. If you will turn to page 34 of the report, you will find they say, although they have lost £1¼ million, "Fortified by a year of progress." Supposing, after I reported such a loss to my shareholders, I said, "In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, I am fortified by a year of progress." That is the report presented to


this House. Let public enterprise look to its laurels.
We have been told by hon. Gentlemen opposite, as we were told by their predecessors in the last 50 years that we have only to collectivise society, to remove the private interests, and everything in the garden would be lovely. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who said it?"] It was said 30 years ago by the late James Maxton, who was deserted by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) for the Labour Party. It was said by Robert Blatchford, by Philip Snowden, by James Ramsay Macdonald. All these men said it, and now we are told tonight, although none are here except the last of the Independent Labour Party, who has now joined the Labour Party and is now its faithful servant——

Mr. McGovern: The hon. Gentleman is chiding us for having enunciated these things, but is it not the fact that he himself enunciated them? Was he not a Labour condidate for a considerable time, athough he has since joined the Tory Party?

Sir W. Darling: I think that observation is slightly out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but if the hon. Member for Shettleston desires to add to the somewhat full account I give of myself in "Who's Who," who am I to object? It is true that I, like the hon. Member for Shettleston, and the men I have mentioned, shared these ideals 25 years ago, but, I saw the light. I learned by experience. If a loss of £1¼ million on British Overseas Airways, coming on the top of losses of millions and millions in every part of the world, does not convince even the hon. Member for Shettleston, I give up any hope of his conversion, even if one came from Heaven.
I say that public enterprise must look to its laurels. Half the population of this country at the election before last was told that if we would change the basis of society into a Marxist conception, all would be well and that profits, ease, comfort would be our good fortune. All of us hoped that that would be true, but we have to admit that it has not come out as we expected. Even the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations finds that it is not now as easy to talk about the brotherhood of man in South Africa as it was to talk about it 25 years ago. We

are all disillusioned by the difference between those on this side, who are disillusioned, and those on the opposite side. Those on that side have no alternative. We have an alternative; we have a better way. But I must not be thought to be ungrateful for what civil aviation has done for Scotland.

Mr. Woodburn: I gather that the hon. Member takes the view that the deciding factor as to whether nationalised industry is efficient is whether it makes a profit. Would he say that the Post Office, for instance, is efficient just because it makes a profit? If the Post Office reduced its rates, allowed the people to have its services cheaper, and did not make a profit, would that make a difference to its efficiency?

Sir W. Darling: I do not know whether the House would bear with me but I could speak for three-quarters of an hour or more on Post Office mismanagement. Would it not be more proper for me to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he had better ask that question of his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General? Even a fairly unpropitious, answer is that the Post Office is an extortionate profiteer and is charging 2½d. for what my father got for 1d. I am not sure that I do not prefer the loss of £1¼ million on British Overseas Airways to the fantastic profits obtained by the Post Office by overcharging people. I do not, however, Wish to be diverted to this issue, although I am quite willing to make a speech on it on any other occasion, with, or without excuse.
We recognise in Scotland the value of the ambulance services, which have been spoken of so critically by the hon. Member opposite. The carrying of 271 patients from outlying parts of the Islands and Highlands was a remarkable achievement. That those 271 patients are charged as being responsible for the loss of British Overseas Airways is not quite fair. Putting the cost even at £20 apiece, the total is under £6,000. There is a long way to go before we can charge against the loss of £1¼ million this £5,000 or £6,000 which has been spent on sick and dying Highlanders.
I notice with regret that there are now only 13 aerodromes in Scotland. There were something like 40 when I was a district commissioner for civil defence. This


decrease in numbers is disappointing, especially as it has not been accompanied by increasing efficiency. I was interested in the statement about costs on page 10 of the report. Questions of costs rarely interest Members of the Government, but it is an item to which businessmen have to direct their attention. Page 10 of the report informs us that
Costs for the operation of British Internal Services are inevitabily higher than those of Continental Services. …
Why is that? Since when were our costs higher universally in Great Britain than on the Continent, and why? This, after all, is a model industry, backed by all the weight of the State and all the genius which the State can command at any salary which the State is prepared to pay. Yet we are solemnly told that the costs of the operation of British internal services are higher than those of Continental services. Was there ever such defeatism? What do the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Productivity Committee say to this defeatist theme?
Let me give the reasons for all this. The reasons, say British European Airways, are that these higher internal costs than on the Continent are due, first, to
The comparatively short stages flown, especially on social services. (The average distance is 113 miles.)
I am not in the transport business to any great extent although I am slightly connected with it, but I put it to the well-informed and highly-competent directors of this organisation that this is a new theme, and that in transport generally, the shorter the distance, the more lucrative is the trade. I wonder whether the auditors of that statement would look at the figures for London Transport, who will say that they do much better by taking passengers from Charing Cross to the Temple than even from Charing Cross to the Bank? It would seem to me that where there is an intensification of trade with many short spells, the argument which is true of transport generally cannot be denied as applied to this form of transport in particular.

Mr. Beswick: Probably it has not escaped the notice of the hon. Gentleman that a tube train does not have to take off and land again.

Sir W. Darling: That had not escaped me, but it has also not avoided my notice that a train stops at the Temple,

disgorges its passengers, and goes on again. In the language which the hon. Gentleman understands, it lands at the Temple "aerodrome" and takes off at the Temple "aerodrome."
I think the real reason is that the landing fees are high. At a railway station, whether it be a tube railway or a long-distance railway, the fees are less expensive. Here we read that the landing fees are 8 per cent. in the United Kingdom and the figure on the Continent is 3 per cent. What is the reason for that? Is this again a case of British ineptitude under State management? Are the Continental people quicker than us in taking off and landing? These questions have to be answered. On page 10 it is stated:
The landing fees paid by B.E.A. on internal operations were 8.66 per cent. of revenue compared with 2.96 per cent. on Continental operations.
Is this another example of the decline of Britain and of inferiority? We have had one example and if Britain is inferior in both spheres, what has the Minister to say about it?
I turn to the third reason, which is a remarkable one, that the levy of a heavy petrol tax makes the industry unprofitable. But it is within the knowledge of this House that other industries have to pay a heavy petrol tax; I do in a business with which I am connected, and so does everyone. But I am not allowed to show a loss or someone wants to know what I have been doing. This great organisation puts forward that it has to pay the same tax as others as a reason it is not successful. I am not a member of the Advisory Committee, but what is wrong with B.E.A.C. buying its petrol direct?—[An HON. MEMBER: "From where?"]—direct from where petrol comes. I know that hon. Members are passionately devoted to bulk buying. Let the B.E.A.C. do a little bulk buying. They have a good deal of communication with these overseas places; why not buy it direct and save the tax? I think that a very sensible suggestion.
On page 16 I see there is a reference to the cost of operation being up 3 per cent. Why is the cost of operation up 3 per cent.? The answers are all in the book, but I know it is easier for hon. Members to get the answers from me than from the book. The reason given is a very interesting one and it is of general interest.


It is that something called devaluation has occurred. Devaluation has increased the costs of the Corporation by £180,000 in six months. Shades of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know he is far off in Switzerland, and I hope he hears my good wishes for his welfare and not my anathema for this policy. We were told that devaluation would not matter much, but now we are told that it is a cause of this loss. This is not the ex parte argument of a thick-headed Tory recently converted from the Socialist Party, but it is stated by the Corporation. Devaluation was hailed as a boon. I wonder where hon. Members would say the boon is now?
The cost of aviation fuel is also blamed. I wonder what hon. Members would say if I said that in this House. Where is this nonsense to end of Government Departments being taxed in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may take that tax from them? Is there not a better plan of democratic Socialism than this taxation of Government Departments by Government Departments? This Report which we are considering complains; it wants to be rid of this jungle of taxation; it wants to be free of these ridiculous encumbrances. I am not in favour of State enterprise. In know of none that has been well conducted——

Dr. Morgan: The Post Office.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is too late. The Post Office has already been mentioned, and I have answered that point. From experience and knowledge of what I have read and seen, my view is that State enterprise is not successful in any field in which it operates; but State enterprise is established, and all of us are engaged in it, and we wish it well. But when I read a report of this kind it makes me wish to ask whether the Government want to prove that collectivism is practicable. This Report says that it moves from mess to muddle, from one despair to another.
Is it not time the Government set up a Royal Commission or had a private inquiry into how to make State enterprise pay? It does not pay in the Civil Aviation service. Scotland is dissatisfied. It does not pay in dividends for there are none—there is a loss of £1,250,000. Is Socialism a success or a

failure? If Socialism is to be judged on this document, then Socialism is a failure. If that is so, it will break the heart of millions, and I do not want this enterprise to fail. I want it to suceed, and I ask the Minister to try to see that it does better.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: We realise that during a Second Reading debate a wide latitude is allowed to speakers but one has only to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) to realise how wide that latitude is. Naturally I do not propose to follow him in some of the extraordinary excursions which he made tonight, but I am sure that he will not be offended with me if I point out to him, arising from what he has said, that the only section of civil aviation which is nationalised is the airport section. There are three different set-ups. There are the aerodromes, which are nationalised. There is the operating side, which is under the two Corporations. There is the manufacturing side, which is still under private enterprise, and I gathered from the tenor of the hon. Member's remarks that it is that section against which he has the greatest complaint.
It is interesting to note that the manufacturing side of the industry was located by private enterprise in London and the Home Counties. Why that was done is not for me to examine. That industry was largely localised in the Home Counties under the control of certain great monopolies. When the Labour Government came into power they urged, they used every pressure that they could possibly bring to bear on, the aircraft industry to spread itself from the environs of London into other parts of the country.

Mr. Ward: Could I interrupt the hon. Member?

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry, I cannot give way at this stage and I am sure that the hon. Member realises that. Today we have actually encouraged the industry, by Ministerial pressure, to expand as far as Lancashire. I should be glad of the attention of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, because he took a great deal of time to make a few accusations. One of them concerned the treatment meted out to the aircraft industry by the Government, which has no control over the industry. I believe the Government should have had more control and one of


the primary mistakes which has been made was that the industry was not nationalised. If it had been, the Minister of Supply might have been able to place part of it at Prestwick and do what private enterprise so far has been unable effectively to do. This quotation may interest the hon. Gentleman because his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) who dealt earlier this evening with Prestwick, attacked the Government on exactly the same score. Yet in his speech to the Scottish Unionist Conference at Edinburgh he did not deny, he admitted, that B.E.A. were willing to lease part of the airport to the company:
If that lease has not been signed and stamped for the aircraft industry and services by the company, then the officials of the latter are not without blame.
If the industry has not been able to go ahead it is due to no lack of support from the Government, but to the fact that they themselves have not been willing to come to terms, have not been able to get round the table and negotiate on a matter upon which the Government is prepared to negotiate with them.
Perhaps I should point out to the hon. Member—and I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr is no longer in his place—that we should realise that the construction, development and maintenance of Prestwick Airport has absorbed no less than £2,788,000 of public money. I think that even the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South in spite of all he has said tonight, would not be prepared to see that airport revert to the hands of a small group of people. It is public property. The amount of public money invested in it is 25 times the amount invested by the small group of people who originally started the airport.
I consider the hon. Member advances a very poor claim on behalf of Scottish aviation, either as manufacturers or operators, when he suggests that they should be given a further chance to develop that airport. I am glad to see that the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr is now present. The challenge being made with regard to Prestwick involved not merely its operational and constructional facilities, but also its status as an airport. They were challenging the position of Renfrew. Renfrew is the airport for Glasgow. In addition it is recognised as the chief airport for internal and for European services.

Sir T. Moore: Who recognises it?

Mr. Rankin: I recognise it, and so do my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. That is part of our policy. It is the airport for Glasgow and the chief airport for internal services as well as European services. That is the position which Prestwick challenged. It wanted to be more than the transatlantic airport. It wanted to grab the whole show. That would have been unfair to the City of Glasgow which is really the reservoir for air traffic. Anyone who takes even a passing interest in the subject realises that, although the hon. Gentleman does not.

Sir W. Darling: Sir W. Darling rose——

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry I cannot give way.

Sir W. Darling: I gave way about seven times.

Mr. Rankin: Yes, I know, but I have not the time in hand that the hon. Gentleman had.

Sir W. Darling: Nor the argument.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman reminded me more of the barber's cat tonight than of any person in any argument. He knows about the barber's cat. I do not want to degenerate to his language, but——

Brigadier Thorp: On a point of order. Could we know what the barber's cat is?

Mr. Rankin: No. That is not a point of order.

Sir T. Moore: It is a point of interest.

Mr. Rankin: Having dealt with Prestwick, I want to say something about what has been done for aircraft services in Scotland as a whole. During the period between 1945 and 1950, £1,428,000 has been spent on the maintenance and development of aerodromes. A sum of £1,050,000 has been spent on navigational services. On research, £375,000 has been spent in establishing the "G" chain which we hope will lead to a reduction in aircraft accidents. In the five years since 1945, £2,560,000 has been spent in construction, navigational and research services in Scotland.
Some return is now evident, because increasing air-consciousness is shown in Scotland today. In 1938, 27,000 passengers used the Civil Aviation services. In 1947, the number was 107,320, and last year it had risen to 145,200. That is a


significant and welcome development, lie interesting point is that, while the number of passengers has been increasing, the number of aircraft miles flown has diminished. That indicates that, while we are expanding the services, the organisational aspect is being carefully considered. The number of miles flown in 1947 was 2,481,524. Last year that had fallen by 10,000. Although we had a very considerable increase in the number of passengers carried, the number of aircraft miles had fallen a good deal.
There is this further point, which we have to notice and which should be of interest to Scottish hon. Members. The deficit in the Scottish services for last year was £492,000. That is a serious figure, from the Scottish point of view, because the overall deficit of B.E.A. was something less than £1 million. Fifty per cent. of that deficit was incurred in Scotland, and it was incurred because, as a whole, the range of services in Scotland is uneconomic. It is nice for the Opposition to come along and ask for services here and services there, without realising that already we are incurring nearly 50 per cent. of the total loss in Scotland, due, not merely to the ambulance service provided to the Western Isles, but to the fact that the Scottish services as a whole are largely uneconomic. There is a further explanation which I think is valid. We are using aircraft that now ought to be replaced. The D.H. Rapide and the Dakota have served their day, and I think that, if times were better so far as building new aircraft is concerned, we might be able to reduce this deficit.
I should have liked to refer to the question of accidents in civil aviation, because we have always pledged ourselves in this House to safety first, safety second, and safety all the time. Hon. Members on both sides who have not yet studied the "Survey of accidents to aircraft in the United Kingdom" for last year would find it very profitable indeed to do so, and they would realise, that, in spite of the efficiency of the mechanism of an aircraft and the efficiency of our research in providing navigational aids, the majority of accidents are still due to human failure in one direction or another. Last year, 40 per cent. of all aircraft accidents were due to failures on the human side.
Before I sit down, I want to put one or two questions to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. There has been a good deal of talk about the effect of ice dropping from aircraft. I do not know whether there is anything substantial in that, but I wonder if my hon. Friend would say whether or not there is any danger due to that fact. Could he also say what is happening to the Comet? We heard a great deal a year ago about the performance of that machine. Has it proved too costly to operate, and will he say a word about its future?
My last point is with regard to reports on accidents. It is now nearly eight months since the accident at Mill Hill, and we are still awaiting the report of the committee. I know that we must give these people their time, but we must also maintain public confidence in airline efficiency. I think that seven months is far too long a period to elapse between the actual happening of a disaster and the report on it. The public, I believe, begin to get a little worried when that happens, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us that the report in question will soon be forthcoming, and that he will try to get down to methods which will enable such reports to be produced more speedily in the future than they have been in the past.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The last two speeches were both delivered in delicious Scottish accents, and both had a strong Scottish flavour. I propose, if I may, as coming from the South, to bring the debate back to the main question of civil aviation without touching, for once, on the question of Prestwick.
Earlier today, the Parliamentary Secretary gave us some account of the progress of the Corporations in the last year or so, and I think we were all encouraged by what he had to tell us. We are very glad to hear that they have made an improvement in their operating procedures and also in their financial circumstances, and that their flying operations have increased in scale. But I suggest to the House that in a subject like civil aviation, which deals with one of these specific and most modern activities of the time, it is a good thing to take a somewhat longer perspective. Therefore, with the per-


mission of the House, I shall do that for a minute or two.
We know, of course, that we have been flying in the world for about 50 years. It happens that some 25 years ago—that is just mid-way in this period—the British Government published a survey of the development of civil aviation up to that time, of its then present position, of its prospects in the future, and of British policy towards it. This document was presented by the then Secretary of State for Air, Sir Samuel Hoare, now Lord Templewood, to the Imperial Conference of 1926, and it was called" The Approach Towards a System of Imperial Air Communications." I happen to know that document quite well because, as a matter of fact—and I do not think there is any harm in saying it now—I drafted the memorandum, it being the first important piece of official work I did.
All those connected with civil aviation in those days, including myself in a very humble, voluntary capacity at the Air Ministry, were filled with enthusiasm for what we hoped could be done in the future. Incidentally, that was a faith not shared in all quarters at that time, and it is, I believe, rather instructive to make a few comparisons with those days. Those were the days when what we proudly called the modern three-engined commercial aeroplane, the Argosy, was the latest type. It had a horsepower of just over 1,000, as against the 10,000 to 15,000 of today. It carried 248 gallons of petrol against the 5,000 or 6,000 carried today, and had a range, with full load, of 400 miles against the 2,600 or 2,700 miles of the present time.
The memorandum also greatly exulted that the mileage flown by aircraft throughout the world on regular air routes had increased from just over one million miles in 1919 to 12,500,000 miles in 1925. The latest annual figure in 1949 was 870 million aircraft miles flown. I point that out because it is rather interesting and instructive in comparison with the past. I would add that I still have the faith which I had 25 years ago, and that I agree with Mr. Peter Masefield, the chief executive of British European Airways, that civil aviation has as yet hardly begun.
I turn lastly to the question of safety, which everybody will agree is always vital in civil aviation, and I cannot resist quot-

ing one sentence from the Memorandum of that time. It is:
British aeroplane services have always paid great attention to the technical points upon which the safety of aircraft depend.
I am happy to say I believe that always has been the case and still is the case, and I hope it always will be the case. Then the Memorandum pointed out that in 1920 there were 168,000 miles flown for every fatal accident and that the figure had gone up satisfactorily year by year until it reached just over one million miles per fatal accident in 1945. In 1950 the comparable figure was just over 25 million miles per fatal accident for British civil scheduled air route flying. There were two fatal accidents in 1950, both in B.E.A. One was an accident in fog which, of course, we cannot discuss in detail tonight. If that accident in fog had been avoided the figure I have mentioned would have been raised to 50 million miles flown per fatal accident.
That brings me to safety in relation to navigation and, of course, to landing in foggy conditions. That raises the question of F.I.D.O. which has been discussed at Question Time and occasionally in short debate, but it has not been fully debated. F.I.D.O., if I may describe it succinctly and I hope accurately, is the physical dispersal of fog on, over and surrounding a runway so that an aircraft can make a visual landing in a clear space over the runway even though the surrounding country is shrouded in fog.
The civil story of F.I.D.O. starts when Heathrow Airport, London, was under construction towards the end of the war and F.I.D.O. was included in its apparatus. This was done by an act of the National Coalition Government. Almost at once the Socialist Government when they came into office cancelled the whole project which by then was already nearly two-thirds completed. I should like to examine for a moment the reasons which led the National Coalition Government to decide on installing the system at Heathrow and the reasons which may have led the present Government to cancel it, and what we ought to do with regard to the future. Throughout the argument I shall pay special attention to the question of finance.
F.I.D.O., of course, was born of dire operational necessity to save the lives of pilots and to save exceedingly costly and scarce machines. In 1942 there were very


heavy bomber casualties as a result of accidents due to pilots crashing when the fog closed in over their airfields when they came back from bombing raids. Many pilots told me that they feared fog over their own airfields more than flak over Germany. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) took a keen interest in this subject and, advised by Lord Cherwell, he remitted to the Ministry for Aircraft Production, which was the appropriate Department, the problem of the physical dispersal of fog over airfields.
The Ministry reported against this possibility. That would have been enough for most Prime Ministers but not for my right hon. Friend. Those were days when we had real administrative virility at No. 10, Downing Street. He decided to give the Petroleum Department the chance to see whether they could solve the problem on any unorthodox line. That was on 26th September, 1942. It was a tremendous challenge and we put everything we had into it. By November we had made experiments in clearing fog and by the next spring we had experimental apparatus installed at the airfield at Graveley in the Eastern counties. We had to wait until July for a fog there, and the first operational landing was made at Graveley by four Halifaxes in November.
After that there were 2,500 aeroplanes landing by this means of the physical dispersal of fog during the war, many of them in conditions of fog so dense that, although it may hardly be believed, after the F.I.D.O. apparatus was turned off the pilots in some cases took two hours to find the control tower from the position of their aircraft on the field, and in other cases they had to remain in the mess instead of going by car to their dispersed sleeping huts.
Hon. Members will understand that with all this going on and with the construction of the new airport at Heathrow, which we were told was to be the finest airfield in the world, we all knew that it must suffer from one great defect, namely the undue prevalence of fog to a degree which no other great airport suffers. We felt that we had the cure in F.I.D.O., and it was for that reason, after careful consultation, that it was decided to instal F.I.D.O. at Heathrow

and thus, we felt, put Heathrow right ahead of all the other great airports in the world from the point of view of this extremely dangerous hazard of the air.
It is quite wrong to say, as I know has been said by one Government spokesman in the past, that this was all done by the Ministry, that it was an Air Ministry idea and had nothing to do with civil aviation. That is not correct. It is true that the airport at Heathrow was still in the care of the Air Ministry, because the Ministry of Civil Aviation had not at that time really come into being. But the consultations between the Petrol Warfare Department, the Air Ministry and the civil aviation officials were carried out specifically from the point of view of the post-war civil use of F.I.D.O. at Heathrow as a civil airport. About £400,000 had been spent on this project and it remained to spend £200,000 to complete it.
What were the real motives of the Government in cancelling this project at such a late stage when so much had been spent and so comparatively little remained to be spent? Might it have been the question of the radio aids? There has always been talk of blind landing in fog being achieved completely by radio and electronic methods. As a matter of fact, even during the war there were some who opposed the F.I.D.O. project, and said "Do not bother with this. We are going to be able to do it electrically in a short time. All this will be a waste of effort." They said that electrical means were just around the corner. They are still just around the corner, and, according to the official expectations, they are rather further round the corner than they were some years ago. I feel there is no doubt that one day it will be done electrically, but I think it is bound to take some time.
Let no one depreciate the wonderful results obtained from electrical aids to navigation. It is true that with a shallow radiation fog F.I.D.O. will punch a hole right through it, and one is able to make a completely visual landing, but when the fog is several hundreds of feet or a thousand feet deep, one can make an approach by radio aids to bring one over the runway, and then it is possible to make the visual approach and effect the actual touch-down on the runway in the cleared area. F.I.D.O. and radio aids are complementary and not antagonistic, and


that is the doctrine to which Lord Brabazon's Report has given its authority quite recently. That may be one reason. I have heard it suggested that the Ministry of Civil Aviation at a rather late stage changed the layout of the runways at Heath Row and that they then found that the pipes that had already been installed for the F.I.D.O. apparatus were not in a convenient position. That may have been the dominant reason for cancelling the installation. Certainly that would be consistent with cancelling it at such a very late stage.
Whatever the real motive may have been, once the decision was taken it was justified by the Government on the ground of the high cost of the F.I.D.O. apparatus. Such an argument was fairly easy to make because it should be remembered that F.I.D.O. was developed on a war-time basis when money was not the primary factor, when the need to save the lives of the pilots and to save the machines was the thing which mattered. Who, for example, could put a price on the ability to keep up the anti-submarine patrol by take-off under F.I.D.O. or on the bombing of the supply lines of Von Runstedt under conditions of fog?
I should like to give the House three reasons why it was easy to make out a case of extravagance of fuel against F.I.D.O. It is a rectangular apparatus with a burner right round—a burner down each side of the runway and across it. We can burn all those burners; in fact, we need to do so in certain weather conditions, such as where there is no wind or where there is a parallel wind. Where there is a wind across the runway, we need to burn only that one side. That immediately reduces the fuel consumption by one-half.
During the war, when pilots were tired and some were coming home wounded, the station commanders took the view that they should always have F.I.D.O. burning 100 per cent., irrespective of the fact that it was rather wasteful. Who would blame them? Secondly, pilots very much liked to see F.I.D.O. in the distance. They could see it from over the coast of Holland. F.I.D.O. was burning, therefore, all the time and away into the night. But who would blame the men who did that? Certainly I should not, and I had the responsibility of providing the fuel.
Thirdly, there was a certain class of large rescue runway provided by the R.A.F. to take the lame ducks who came home wounded and had great difficulty in landing. They were exceptionally large and wide runways—Manston and Woodbridge are the two chief examples—and they presented a great problem to F.I.D.O, for, in order to achieve the results, we had to install a specially powerful installation with a double fuel consumption, which was very extravagant.
By slurring over points of this kind it was easy to build up a great case against the F.I.D.O. fog dispersal apparatus on the grounds of its extravagance, and Lord Nathan in another place took the figure up to £3,650 an hour. I have explained that that was by using the Manston example. I have explained that an ordinary airfield used only half that used by the Manston airfield and that sometimes it used only one line, thus halving consumption again. We can therefore bring the figure down to one-quarter of the high total quoted in another place.
I would add one further point to that. The second time that F.I.D.O. was used operationally at Fiskerton 11 Lancasters came in together. They had never used F.I.D.O. before and had never seen it, but they all landed safely and at a speed of one aircraft every three minutes. The point is that we do not need to consider this apparatus as being on for hours on end. We are entitled to calculate its cost in terms of minutes for bringing in an aircraft. Remember that its operation in clearing fog can be practically instantaneous.
In order to correct the high estimates which we have had from Government spokesmen in the past, I should like to quote an estimate from a scientist engaged in developing this apparatus during the war. I freely admit that this goes rather to the other extreme. Taking two minutes for landing on a 1,500-yard runway and using one-third of a gallon per minute, then in conditions in which there was no wind or a parallel wind and we had two lines burning, it would cost £100, whereas for a cross-wind and only one line it would cost £50. Cross-wind conditions occur three times more frequently than the conditions of no wind or a parallel wind, which demand two burners, so that the average cost of the operation, on these calculations, would be £62 10s. for land-


ing an aircraft. I do not know whether that would be considered as too high a figure for saving lives and perhaps for saving an aircraft like the Comet, which is worth £500,000.
Although fog seems pretty frequent to us and is dreadful when it comes, as far as the air is concerned, taking the whole flying year, it is comparatively infrequent. Let us take an example. It is only an assumption, because I do not know the real, figure. Let us say that one in 100 landings is made in fog conditions. Probably the number would be less. I believe that the cost of fog dispersal apparatus ought not to be debited against particular aircraft using it any more than the cost of a particular lighthouse is debited against the steamer which it saves from the rocks. The cost ought to be spread over the whole of the aircraft using the landings, much as Trinity House dues are spread over the whole of shipping. We might then be able to bring down the cost of F.I.D.O. to 10s. or 15s. per aircraft landing.
The system could be used also for take-off as well as for landing. I will leave hon. Members to calculate exactly the loss involved when a large number of aircraft are delayed and prevented from taking off for one, two or even more days. They would find that because of the delay to the next lot of passengers, it is a loss which is never made good. In a big airport the loss runs up to thousands of pounds a day. In that way, F.I.D.O. could make an actual contribution to the saving of its own cost in landing operations.
I have developed this theme at some length because it has never been developed in the House before by someone who was connected with the subject. I think the House will agree now that there is another side to the argument on finance than that to which the House has listened on and off for five years in this House and in another place, sustained by Government spokesmen. My argument has all led, not towards the installation of F.I.D.O. at some inconvenient standby airfield which people have to go a long way to reach, but to a proper, absolutely modern, F.I.D.O. installation at London Airport itself. The installation can also be used for take-off. This argument has also depended upon instantaneous lighting and putting out. This could not have

been done by the cheap idling process experimented with by us at the end of the war. We were trying to get F.I.D.O. on to a cheap basis for the future. We experimented with diesel. I am glad that the Ministry of Supply have developed the high-pressure diesel which is almost the only system that gives instantaneous light-up and extinction.
I welcome that development, and I appeal to the Government, without bringing in any controversial feeling—I have felt strongly that the decision was wrong in the past—to reconsider this matter very carefully—I would not want it done in any other way—and to consult some of the scientific and engineering experts who helped to bring this apparatus to such a very high point during the war.
British Civil Aviation seems to be something different from and bigger than any company or corporation in existence at any particular time. It is really a kind of movement. A very large number of enthusiasts are in civil aviation, Which is almost a vocation. They have to endure the changing régimes imposed by this House and by various Governments. They are entitled to our sympathy. Quite a lot of experienced men are now serving the Corporation, doing the practical job, and they really want a period of stability in their operations. We ought to do our best to help them by conducting our discussion on civil aviation with the minimum amount of controversial element that we can, consistent with the proper discharge of our duties. I should have preferred the system brought forward by the National Coalition Government whereby the Corporations had the existing scheduled routes and the new scheduled routes were then opened to anybody who could prove that they were best fitted to run them.
I welcome very much the progress that the Corporations have made. We must recognise that they have at the head of them men of the highest ability and of varying types of experience. We know that they are passionately trying to do their best to bring the Corporations more and more on to an economic basis. I often wonder whether the Ministry is helping them as much as it might. We know that this Ministry is quite a large overhead on what is still a comparatively small industry, and I am afraid that there must be a bit of a danger of minutes passing in the Department, which result in a


positive spate of inquiries and advice, and, in general, what I might call backseat driving of the Corporations by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. It is difficult to find specific instances, but my suspicion is that there may be too much of that.
While they may be interfering and doing positive harm in this matter, are they giving the Corporations the help that they really deserve? Today we have heard questions from one or two hon. Members about the Post Office contract. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a little more information on that. As I understand the position, at the present time the Post Office pays the Argentine Air Lines for carrying the British mails to the Argentine at the rate of 245d. per short ton mile, whereas it pays the British Overseas Airways Corporation 142d. per short ton mile for carrying the British mails over exactly the same distance from this country to the Argentine. There may be an explanation. We shall hear no doubt about the Postal Convention and a great many other things of that kind, and we have been informed by the Assistant Postmaster-General that this was settled on a purely commercial basis. Hon. Members on this side of the House have asked how a purely commercial basis was arrived at between two Government monopolies, and we should rather like to know the answer to that.
I have the uneasy feeling that the Post Office imposed its will upon the Air Corporations, and that they did not get the support which they really deserved from their own Ministry of Civil Aviation. I wonder whether this was really fought out, because, after all it would make a very considerable difference in the reduction of the deficit and help them very much indeed. We all want to see these Corporations paying as soon as they possibly can, because when they are making a deficit they always have an inferiority complex and are nervous about carrying on their business. Once they get on to a profitable basis, it will be a new era.
We must remember that the Corporations are not what they ought to be to our British civil aviation. As in shipping there are liner companies and tramps, so there should be in the air. The present state of the charter industry is unhappy and unsatisfactory. The number of aircraft and pilots is declining, and from a national point of view this is thoroughly

bad. A great deal of responsibility rests with the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward), expressed our anxiety about the unfair competition between the Corporations and the independent operators. I know that this is a complicated and financial subject, but the Government, in view of their pledges, have an obligation to the House to help us to come to a true appreciation of whether or not the Government's pledges given at the time of the passing of the Act are really being fulfilled. It would be as well just to remind the House and the present Parliamentary Secretary, who may not remember, of the words of his predecessor, who said:
I think it would be very wrong in the light of this policy that the whole power of State finance should be used against private operators. It would be wrong to use the power of finance to crush them, and we have no desire to do that. … I give the assurance, however, that Exchequer grants will not be used for the purpose of under-cutting private operators."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 23rd May, 1946; c. 459–60.]
In response to my hon. Friend who was anxious about the question of overheads, the Parliamentary Secretary earlier said that it was a question of whether or not a profit was made by the Corporations on the particular charter operation. If I misunderstood him, I apologise.

Mr. Beswick: I said that the test would be whether entering into such an operation would increase the deficit.

Mr. Lloyd: I am afraid that I cannot accept that. What I said I thought the hon. Gentleman said would have been a very much better test. Is it really to be supposed that these Corporations, supporting themselves upon their vast public subsidies, are to be allowed to go into operation in competition with the charter companies which might not yield a profit if the proper proportion of the overheads were included in the transaction? Is that to be the proposition? I suggest that each charter operation carried out by the national Corporations should, in addition to its prime cost, carry its proper proportion of the whole overheads of the Corporation. That would be a reasonable test of the fairness of competition with an independent operator. The Government should look into the matter to see if they can give us some figures to satisfy the genuine anxieties on this side of the House about this matter, anxieties which were shared on the opposite benches by


the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock).
I am afraid that I must also press the Minister on another aspect of the charter business. Earlier he was telling the House that there was a great increase in the sense of security and stability in British civil aviation. I am afraid that that is not the case in charter operation. While these people have built up a very considerable business—for example, like the leave schemes from Benina, Malta and Cairo—by fitting in with the requirements of the local troops and by carrying full cargoes and so on, and have been able to carry out those operations at about half the fare charged by the regular airlines, yet the Minister in another place, has now started to threaten the independent operators. He started off by saying:
My feelings towards the independent operators are Christian and humane.
That was rather like the schoolmaster saying, "It hurts me more than it hurts you." He went on to say:
These services are not charter operations as envisaged in the Act"—
although later on he said that he would not interpret the law. He said:
I can only say—and I want this to be clearly understood"—
mark the threatening tone—
that if the intention of the Act were persistently thwarted in this way, it would create a position which the Government could not accept indefinitely.
That is a threat to the independent operators. How can they experience this feeling of security and general stability about which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke when the responsible Minister has given notice that if the courts do not support him, he intends to change the law? I suggest that he think it over carefully. Indeed, I must admit that he offered to do so after the very hot reception he received in another place after making those remarks. If he introduces amending legislation further to restrict the operations of the independent operators, I can promise him that we shall oppose it in this House.
Can anyone suppose that British shipping could have reached its present stage if it had been confined to a couple of Government-sponsored Corporations? We want to create conditions under which the independent operators can develop to the full this relatively new field of air

traffic. I began by looking backward for half a century, but if we look forward the same period, may it not well be that there will be a great development in this business which will, incidentally, throw up operators who may have a chance with regard to new scheduled lines in the future?

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Beswick: With the leave of the. House I should like to answer some of the many points raised during this discussion. I only hope I can steer my way through my rather copious notes more successfully than the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward) was able to steer his way through the Amendment to the Air Navigation Order. We have had a most useful discussion on a number of points and, if I am not able to deal with them all, I hope it will not be thought that it is through discourtesy. I should be glad to clear up any matter with which I am not able to deal now.
I ought first to refer to the entertaining contribution made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), although I am sorry to see that not only was he not here when I spoke earlier but, having made his powerful contribution, he has not stopped to hear the reply.

Air Commodore Harvey: He was here two minutes ago. He has only just gone out. [Interruption.]

Mr. Beswick: As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, was walking into the Chamber I was about to say that, having devoted one half of his speech to criticising centralised bureaucracy and over-standardisation, he then went on to demand that we rivet upon the necks of one of the Corporations that standard of accounts which the other Corporation has devised. I assure him that we have no intention or desire to see this overall standardisation. We shall give the fullest possible liberty to these two Corporations to develop their own style in their own way. The only thing we ask is that they shall not contravene the standards of safety that we lay down.

Sir W. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to interrupt, may I ask is he not aware that the Companies Act provides that subsidiary and associated companies shall submit accounts in a similar form? That was all I asked the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Beswick: It does not go as far as to say where the accounts shall be printed and the type that shall be used. I think also the hon. Gentleman might have referred to that part of the loss, which he spent so much time discussing, resulting from the services provided to his home country. It is of the order of £462,000, by far the greatest single item in the loss, and it results from the services provided to his people in Scotland.
Whilst I am on the subject of Scotland, I might mention the points raised by the —I was about to say the hon. and gallant Member for Prestwick, but I mean, of course, the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore). I am very pleased indeed that the hon. and gallant Member has left the position which he adopted at Question Time last Wednesday and that he no longer seriously criticises the action of my noble Friend on the development of, or the proposals to develop, Prestwick Airport. I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member should agree that we have gone a long way to meet the proposals of the Clydesmuir Committee, and I only hope that he will have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton), who seemed to think that we had not read that Report and were not paying any attention to it.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I have his full statement after reading the Clydesmuir Report. If I understand him aright, he is going to make it possible for Stratocruisers to land on one runway at Prestwick on 85 per cent. of occasions with a full load, and that, from the earlier statement of the hon. Gentleman, which is not in the statement given on 15th February last, this will be possible by the end of the year. Is this correct?

Mr. Beswick: I hope that I now have agreement between the two hon. Gentlemen that we have gone a long way to meet the recommendation of the Clydesmuir Committee as far as the development of the airport is concerned.
The only criticism that remains, apparently, as far as Prestwick is concerned relates to the provision of feeder services. As the hon. Member for Inverness knows, there has been a certain amount of discussion on this point. My noble Friend said in the other place that a number of feeder services had been approved for

Prestwick and that so far, unfortunately, it had not been possible to reach agreement with the company concerned on the terms of operation. Since that time, there have been meetings and discussions with the managing director of that concern, and I hope it will be possible to run, at any rate, some of the services from Prestwick under conditions approved by the Air Transport Advisory Council.
Another point was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr. He said, I thought rather unfairly, that the announcement made by, I think, the Minister of Supply that about £150,000 of business was to be given to this company operating at Prestwick was quite untrue; he said that only one aircraft had been sent there for conversion. I am not quite sure how and from where the hon. Member gets his information, but my information is that B.E.A. have already sent nine Dakotas to Scottish Aviation and have already received three back converted.

Sir T. Moore: When?

Mr. Beswick: I got this information this evening. They have agreed that the whole 36 conversions will be completed at Prestwick.

Sir T. Moore: Good. I am glad to accept the hon. Gentleman's correction. His information is up to date but mine is two weeks old.

Mr. Beswick: We then had another plea from another most deserving part of Scotland, for an increase and an improvement of services to the Orkneys and Shetlands. Having myself been there, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) knows, having landed on some of these islands not as yet provided with a service, and having seen the real air-mindedness of these people, whom, one would have thought had never had any dealings with air transport, I was most impressed; and I hope it will be possible before very long to provide them with an adequate service.
I was asked also about the type of aircraft that would be used. To some of those islands, at any rate, it is very unlikely that any adequate or proper service can be given until we have a helicopter; and we cannot operate there with helicopters until we have a multi-engined machine. There should be a 10–12 seater twin-engined machine available in, probably, three to five years for operational


service, and in another 8–10 years we would hope that there would be a large machine, probably a 20–30 seater, that would be able to operate quite economically. The hon. Member made one or two criticisms about the over staffing of the stations in the Orkney and Shetlands. I am inclined to think that I must refer him to the hon. Member for Inverness who made the opposite criticism, that we were under-staffed there and had to resort to some austere improvisations.
The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) accused me of over cheerfulness and pointed out that the deficit, although reduced, was nevertheless quite large. I ought to emphasise that the results of which I was speaking related to the period ending January, 1951. They were, of course, much more recent than the results dealt with in the report for the year ended March, 1950, and I should have thought that on the basis of the figures I gave there was some reason for cheerfulness.
I was asked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the sort of fight we had put up over the mail rates. I was asked about mail rates by several hon. Members and I think they wanted me to describe some violent civil war within the Government on this question. This is a matter we have not overlooked. I am inclined to accept the very powerful argument put forward by the right hon. Member for King's Norton. I can only say that discussions on the point are going on and I hope they may result in some agreement.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does that mean there has been disagreement in the past and that the Minister is not satisfied with the rates?

Mr. Beswick: It means that we hope that discussion on the matter will lead to some agreement. It does not mean disagreement but means what I have said, that there is ground for discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. G. Cooper), had some interesting points to make about the structure of the industry. I do not propose to follow him in his comments this evening. I ought to say to him that I thought it unfair to quote that part of the letter from the Chairman of the British Overseas Airways Corporation which he quoted.

The Chairman of the Corporation had said to my hon. Friend that he was very ready to discuss with him any criticism he had to make. He had in fact suggested to my hon. Friend that they meet here to discuss it, but unfortunately my hon. Friend was away in another part of the world at the time.

Mr. G. Cooper: The point I was making was that I thought it unfortunate that the Chairman took up an attitude which would tend to deter what I thought constructive criticism.

Mr. Beswick: The Chairman thought it more useful to discuss matters over which he had control, than matters for which he had no responsibility as Chairman, three or four years earlier.
Several hon. Members asked about the S.R.45. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley), and the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield also questioned me closely about the attitude of the Government and of the Corporations to this project of the S.R.45. Possibly it would be as well if I gave a brief history of this project and dealt with some of the arguments that lead the Government to make a decision about it.
Work on the design of the S.R.45 started in December, 1945. The need for a very large flying boat for commercial operations between the United Kingdom and New York was visualised. It was considered that a very large machine was required and that a flying boat of the size contemplated would be structurally more efficient than a very large land plane. Saunders-Roe Ltd. were charged with the preparation of a design study. The proposals of this company were accepted by a meeting held by the Minister of Civil Aviation in February, 1946, at which the Chairman of B.O.A.C. was present. In April, 1946, the design had been developed and it was estimated that boats constructed to this design would have a cruising speed of 370 m.p.h. at 37,000 ft. for a range of 5,000 still air statute miles with a payload of 25,000 lb. Instructions to proceed to this specification were given in May, 1946.
During the next 18 months the design was revised on two occasions principally because of the change of engines to be installed. At each change the weight and cost grew without a corresponding payload increase. Also fuel consumption was increased, causing a further rise in


the estimated gross weight. A little later doubts grew as to the feasibility of providing on the same route facilities for large flying boats as well as land planes. Other nations had meanwhile abandoned the flying boat. That meant that the full cost of the marine airport organisation would be borne by the single United Kingdom operator.
It was at this point some two or more years ago that it was almost decided to cancel the project. The reason it was not cancelled was that British South American Airways put forward a proposal to use this machine on their South American routes. It was thought that bases could be provided at somewhat less cost than on the North Atlantic service. The House will remember that the chief executive of B.S.A.A. was a flying boat enthusiast. Though there were some doubts about the detailed proposals that were submitted, principally on the point of traffic potential on that route, it was nevertheless agreed that work should proceed.
There were advantages in this design apart from the commercial prospects. As I have said, it was expected that we should gain greater aeronautical knowledge from the project. There was also the aspect of the defence potential as far as the particular manufacturing firm was concerned. A number of these factors have changed in the last months. Moreover the construction cost had continued to mount. Last year, the three machines that had previously been calculated to cost £2,800,000, were then seen to be reaching above the £10 million mark. At the same time the Comet aircraft was coming along much faster than had been planned, and its calculated operating costs were far below the figures for the flying boat. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield said that we ought to have known about the Comet two or three years ago.

Air Commodore Harvey: I said 18 months ago.

Mr. Beswick: Even 18 months ago it was not known that the Comet could operate with the Avon engine on the North Atlantic. Until comparatively recently it had been fitted with a Ghost engine. With that engine it would not have been possible to have operated over the North Atlantic.
There was another factor which led us to make this decision. That was that the total traffic from the South American Continent to Europe has not grown anything like as much as was expected. I know that it might be suggested that with these flying boats we might have scooped almost the entire traffic between the South American Continent and Europe, but in air transport these matters do not work out that way. Restrictions springing from national pride and national prestige are even more important than service in the air. I do not think it is appreciated how important a part international agreements play in air transport business. It is almost certain that the different countries down the route would simply not have allowed a British Corporation to take up that amount of traffic even though our service would have been as good as I agree it might have been with these flying boats. Therefore, we had to make a hard decision and cancel these machines for commercial use.

Air Commodore Harvey: I appreciate the difficulties that the Parliamentary Secretary has outlined but perhaps he will say why the Chairman of B.O.A.C. throughout the last 18 months up to a very few weeks ago has made statements to the public and the Press which have led everybody to believe that they were all for these flying boats—right up to 20th December last? Why has that been done if there were all these doubts over that period?

Mr. Beswick: Because until I announced a change the policy was to operate these flying boats. [Interruption.] Certainly. There comes a point when a decision has to be made. Up to that time various considerations had been evenly balanced. We reached a decision and the result of that decision is as I have expressed.
I am not sure what is the criticism of hon. Members opposite. Do they think we ought not to have started building these flying-boats? Time and again on Wednesday afternoons I am asked what we are doing to encourage these flying-boat manufacturers. We have been asked today that everything possible should be done to keep up the know-how, the technique, of operating these flying-boats, and I am pleased to think that they will now be put into useful service. I hope and


believe that we shall obtain a lot of useful operational data from the R.A.F. when these boats go into service. I am Still sufficiently keen about the future of the flying-boat to believe that in future we shall see them, either the Princess or a successor to the Princess, operating on the commercial routes.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman asked if we were in favour of flying-boats. We have consistently been in favour of flying-boats. The fact is that the Corporation pretend they want to do one thing but they have done another under pressure from the Minister.

Mr. Beswick: Do I gather that the hon. and gallant Member thinks we should have maintained sufficient pressure to compel them to use these boats? If so, he is going against his previous argument that the Corporation should be entirely free of pressure from the Minister.
I was asked one or two specific questions, both by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield and by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen, about the costs on the South African routes with the Hermes as against previous costs with the Solent. I would say that it is perfectly true that towards the end of their operation on these routes the Solents were coming nearer to making a profit, but the explanation of that was that as they came to the end of their time on that route we did not spend upon them the maintenance that otherwise would have been necessary. Moreover, I have here some figures which reveal a very interesting comparison with the Hermes on the Nairobi sector of the South African route. In May, June and July of last year, the direct route operational costs of the Solent worked out at 36d. per c.t.m. In December, 1950, and January of this year the comparable cost of the Hermes was 31d. per c.t.m., an improvement of 14 per cent.
As my hon. Friend has said, he did not think land planes would prove as attractive as flying-boats, perhaps I might tell him that during the last four months of the Solent operations the six Solent flying-boats carried 3,900 passengers, while in a similar time the four Hermes have carried 4,317 passengers and proved so encouraging and successful, and bookings are so heavy, that we are having to increase the service to Nairobi.
I was also asked a list of questions by the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo), and I doubt whether I can get through them all, but perhaps I may be able to refer to some of them. He said that we ought to operate both the Brabazon and the Princess for reasons of prestige. Either he or some other hon. Member was criticising the explanation or the excuse given for some of these projects on the ground that we have obtained operational knowledge from them. I think that if we were to press too far this question of British prestige, that reason, too, would have worn pretty thin. But I do agree with him about the part being played, especially in some of the smaller countries and Colonies, by the employees of British Corporations. They are in every sense of the term real ambassadors for this country and I have been greatly impressed by the important part they have played in the social life of some of these outlying territories.
The hon. Member asked about the policy of requiring rearward facing seats and suggested that as we had supported this at the international conference, we should be introducing this policy in our domestic sphere. In point of fact, we did not make a demand to the international organisation: we only put forward a tentative recommendation. I suggest that this problem is not so simple as the hon. Gentleman appeared to suggest. It is not merely a matter of turning round the seats. It is not possible yet to have a reversible seat. Some of the most important aspects are the strength of the floor and the design and strength of the actual seat. Until these problems have been studied with great care and until a certain amount of experience has been gathered, I do not think that it would be reasonable to make a definite order affecting British aircraft. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are considering the matter very carefully.

Mr. Profumo: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us more about the Brabazon? He merely referred to the remarks I made. He has not gone into any question about the future of the Brabazon, about which I think the whole House wants to hear.

Mr. Beswick: As I indicated earlier, the Brabazon is the responsibility of the Minister of Supply. It was never at any time ordered by B.O.A.C. The future use of that aircraft is a matter about which the


hon. Gentleman should address Questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply.
I have been asked by several hon. Members about our attitude to the charter companies. My noble Friend has been quoted, and I should like to quote what he actually said. He said:
As I have said earlier, and as Government spokesmen have always asserted, our policy recognises that there is a place in our air transport development for the independent private company.
That is what we have said, that is what we have preached and in fact, that is what we have practised.
I thought that it was most unfair of the hon. Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) to quote the directive on associate agreements as an instance of a punitive attitude on the part of my noble Friend towards the charter companies. In fact, he was opening up to the charter companies an entirely new field of operation. Up to that time they had been expressly prevented from entering into the sphere of scheduled operations. We devised this scheme of associate agreements to permit them to come in.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: What is the use of allowing them to enter into a sphere of operations completely hobbled?

Mr. Beswick: I do not think that it can be said that they are hobbled when we see how many of them are now operating. In the last year we had applications for 131 different services, of which something like 71 per cent. were granted. I do not think that that is hobbling——

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: What security have they got? What future have they got?

Mr. Beswick: —unless the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should subsidise these companies.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Not at all.

Mr. Beswick: I can only say that they have the sort of future that they carve out for themselves. The one condition laid down by the directive of two years ago, which I agree that it was possible to criticise, was the paragraph which restricted the term of operation to two

years. I agree that there was something in the objections to that. The question was looked at again, and that period has now been increased to five years.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Not in every case.

Mr. Beswick: In all cases where there are no operations planned by the British Corporations.

Mr. Ward: Where there is no cream left on the milk.

Mr. Beswick: May I give to hon. Gentlemen opposite some indication of the fact that my noble Friend has been anxious to see that these companies were kept in existence, and that, through Government Departments, contracts were made available to them amounting to no less than £900,000 worth of business in one year. That would scarcely bear out the charge that has been made that we have been hobbling them, and I should have thought that it would have been equally possible to make out a case that we were spoon-feeding them.
I was asked questions about the Corporations competing in this field of charter operations, with a consequent increase of the deficit to the taxpayer, and I was also asked whether there was included, in the case of the Corporations, when tendering for these charter operations, an element for overheads. The overheads not included—and I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite with any knowledge of business on these matters would not have expected them to be included—were those such as technical training, the development of a central supplies organisation and administration. It is certainly true that there is no element in the case of the Corporations' charter activities covering that kind of overhead, but the £260,000 surplus which has resulted from the operations will go towards the reduction of the overheads I have mentioned. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have agreed with that.

Mr. Ward: I am sorry to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, but is he honestly saying that six million capacity ton miles can be flown on charter operations without incurring any administrative expenses whatever?

Mr. Beswick: I am not saying that there were no administrative expenses. So


far as the route expenses were concerned, there were administrative expenses, but not of head office administration. Nevertheless, I also say that there was this surplus of £260,000 towards a reduction of these overheads, and I should have thought that that would have been accepted as being of assistance to the taxpayer in reducing the burden of the subsidy to that extent. I would also say that the Chairman of the Corporation tells me that he personally examines each tender to ensure that direct operating expenses are covered, and that a contribution is made to a reduction of the. Corporations' losses, and hence to the requirement of the subsidy, before they tender for any of these charter operations.
I will now deal with the question of F.I.D.O. which was raised by the right hon. Member for King's Norton, and which I expected him to raise. I am grateful to him for raising the matter in this debate, because I think it is much more satisfactory to deal with the policy of F.I.D.O. operation in a debate like this rather than by Question and answer, which we have had hitherto. I want to emphasise most strongly that there has been no question of reducing the margin of safety because of any reluctance to install F.I.D.O. apparatus at some airports. Perhaps I ought to explain at some little length what is our policy in regard to F.I.D.O.
If the weather was bad, the policy was either to cancel a flight or divert the flight to fog-free airports. The safety was ensured by this policy. If an aircraft set out for this country and in the course of flying the weather blotted out all the available airports, it was possible to resort to one airport at least with F.I.D.O. apparatus. We had at one time Blackbushe and Manston; latterly, only Mans-ton. During the time these two airports were available, it was not a matter of aircraft coming in in foggy weather in flocks as we had in war-time. During the whole time these airports were available there was only one request for the use of F.I.D.O. and that for an aircraft taking off.
If we had installed F.I.D.O. at either London Airport or Northolt, we would not have secured additional safety; we would have bought additional regularity, additional punctuality. The question then

arose: What price could be paid for these two essential factors in air transport operations? This is a commercial consideration, not a matter of safety. With the cost of landing one aircraft varying from £625 to £1,500, the cost of the old system was clearly prohibitive.
As I have explained, and as the right hon. Gentleman has explained, there has been a good deal of research into this question and there is now practically developed a high-pressure oil-burning system which would disperse fog almost immediately. We calculate that the probable annual cost of a system of this kind at London Airport would be about £85,000 and the average cost of fuel for one landing would be £170. This seems a much more feasible proposition, and the question was put to the operators: were they prepared to pay this amount for this additional facility? The preliminary replies were encouraging, and in February, 1951, we convened a meeting with the representatives of the operators to discuss this matter. No firm decisions were taken. We discussed the scale of landing fees; how much for long haul operators, and how much for short haul. These detailed facts are being considered and I hope some firm decision will be taken in the very near future. I think I have dealt with pretty nearly all the points raised.

Mr. Ward: The hon. Gentleman has not answered a most important point. The charter companies have been put in a difficult position because the Minister, in another place, cast doubt on a decision of the courts in a civil aviation case in 1946. The House is entitled to know something more about that.

Mr. Beswick: What my noble Friend said was that he could not supersede the court so far as the interpretation of the law was concerned. It would be quite wrong for him to do that.

Mr. Ward: Why does he not go to the courts?

Mr. Beswick: We shall have to reserve our right to go to the courts if the case arises.
I think I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised. I should have liked to have spoken at greater length on some of the points raised by the noble Lord the Member for Inverness, but possibly I can reserve that for another occasion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

Read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House, for tomorrow.

IRON AND STEEL PRICES

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 16th February, 1951, entitled the Iron and Steel Prices Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 252), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th February, be annulled.
I hasten to reassure the House that this Prayer tonight is not an attack on the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry. We are concerned with the increase in prices which this Order seeks to ensure for a wide range of iron and steel products. As we all know steel enters into the manufacture of a large number of commodities, as the schedule to this Statutory Instrument shows. It covers stainless steel, sheet steel, tinplate and steel bars, rails, fishplates and soleplates, spring steel bars, tubes, pipes and fittings, wire and wire fittings, and railway fittings as well. There is no doubt that cheap steel is essential for the economic welfare of the country, and the British iron and steel industry has served the country well in this respect in the past.
Prices have been rising all around us in the last two years, yet steel prices have risen very much less. If I may give figures over a decade, taking 1938 as 100, in 1948 the general level of wholesale prices had risen to 217 and coal had gone up to 245, but steel prices had risen to only 170. That is an increase of only 70 per cent. compared with the very much greater increase in the other industries. Last summer rail freights were increased, and all the nationalised industries were quick to respond by increasing their prices, but the steel industry did not pass the increase on to the consumer.
However, it became plain that, as prices of so many materials going into the steel works continued to rise, the industry,

whether privately owned or nationalised, could no longer absorb any further major price increase, so that when the price of coal was increased three months ago it was essential that the industry should request a price increase. It should be made plain that the British Iron and Steel Federation has never fixed its own prices since its formation. Before the war the prices of iron and steel products were fixed by reference to the I.D.A.C. During the war there was control by the Ministry of Supply, and latterly by the Iron and Steel Board; now price control has reverted to the Ministry of Supply, which is responsible for the increase authorised by the Order.
The price increases are maximum. They are not the increases which must necessarily follow, but it is more than likely that full advantage will be taken of the increases which have been permitted. There is no doubt that price increases in basic industries have a very deplorable effect on the national economy. During the nationalisation of many industries in the life of the last Parliament we were always being told that it was in the public interests that the basic industries should be nationalised so that prices might be kept down. Exactly the opposite has happened and the nationalised industries have been quicker to put up their prices than any other industries. Now we find, with the steel industry nationalised, that they will quickly follow suit by increasing their prices more than once in the future.
The evil effect of price increases in basic industries, especially in the steel industry, is that there will be a rippling out effect of those increases to so many other affected industries, in particular the other nationalised industries. Let me take just two examples from the Order. The Order increases the price of steel rails. This in turn would increase the cost of railway operations, and I ask, how long will it be before we are faced with a further increase in rail freight charges because the price of the steel which the railways consume has gone up?
In another part of the Schedule there is a reference to colliery arches and auxiliaries, pit props and the like. All those essential items for the nationalised coal industry are to go up in price. How long will it be before we are asked to agree to an increase in the price of coal because of the increased price of the steel products which the nationalised coal in-


dustry must use? The matter was well put in a Question a few days ago by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), who asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday, 13th March:
whether he is aware that each nationalised industry has, in the past 12 months, increased the charges for its services on the ground, among others, that the costs of services provided for it by other nationalised industries have increased; and what steps he is taking to counteract the effect of those increased charges upon the cost of living.
Here is yet one more example of what is taking place. In his reply the Chancellor said:
There has been a general rise in industrial costs both in private and nationalised industry in the past 12 months mainly because of higher prices for imports and to a smaller extent because of higher wages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 137.]
No reference here to the greater cost of coal and the greater cost of rail freight which are not imported at all but are entirely indigenous to this country.
The Government are taking no steps at all to slow down this inflationary spiral movement. I suggest that the Government must stop the rot and succeed somewhere in limiting the price increases which are continually taking place, not only in other industries, but particularly in this basic industry whose well-being is so essential for our welfare.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I beg to second the Motion.
I am sure that we on this side of the House are gratified to see so many hon. Members opposite, not exactly as fellow worshippers in this Prayer but at least bowing the knee in the House, graced with such a distinguished Front Bench, amongst others. This Order to raise steel prices creates at this stage, just after the vesting date of the nationalisation of steel, a matter of considerable interest, if not alarm, to hon. Members opposite. It is time we had a full statement from the Government and from the Ministry of Supply on how this Order was arrived at.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the problem of steel supply in this country is going to be extremely grave. Here we have an Order which lays down increased prices for various items in the steel budget of the nation. One of the things which we and the indus-

trialists want to know is—how much steel will there be available? Sheet steel and plate steel are mentioned in the Schedule, but what the industrialists want to know is—where is the sheet steel and the plate steel? Where are those things which are essential to our industries?
It will be observed that this Order does two things. I see that a great many hon. Members opposite have equipped themselves with copies of the Order, but for the benefit of those who have not done so I propose to quote from it. The shortage of steel at the moment is chronic, and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) knows that it is chronic. The Minister seems to be able to do two things, apart from the normal increase in prices. The Order says, for instance:
Where the Minister of Supply is satisfied that for the purpose of securing a sufficiency of supplies essential to the wellbeing of the community it is desirable that. … he may authorise that producer to sell and that purchaser to buy from him any such material in such quantities and at such price in excess of that scheduled maximum price as he may, having regard to the public interest, deem reasonable.
I see the Minister is now reading the Order, which I presume his Ministry have been through before.
This Order seems to permit the creation of an official grey market in steel. It means that if the Minister deems it in the public interest, consumer A can outbid consumer B by offering a higher price to the manufacturer, with the consent of the Minister. I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite were of the opinion that the nationalisation of steel would do away with all this talk of big cigars and talks at Steel House and would introduce an era of justice and of plenty, yet by this Order the Minister may at his own discretion agree that certain people in the steel consuming industry should pay above the maximum price to purchase steel. [Laughter.] Hon Members opposite may find that amusing—that the Minister should be able to create an official grey market in steel, that it should be possible for certain people to obtain privileges by going to the Ministry and seeing the right person there.
That is the meaning of the Order as I interpret it. I hope that the Minister will interpret it in a clearer and, I trust, a more honest light than I have—[Laugh-


ter.]—that the will be able to show that the Order has a more honest interpretation. Naturally, I interpret such an Order in the way in which the average industrialist would interpret it. When hon. Members opposite have read the Order they will find that it has the same interpretation. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to impress us with a greater honesty in the Order than is suggested by first reading.
I turn now to other parts of the Order, which are of great interest to manufacturers. I see that there is a copy of the document in nearly every hand opposite, and if hon. Members would turn to page 2, clause 4, they will see that it is headed:
Exemption for material situate abroad, and for export.
I hope that the Minister can offer some explanation here. If there are to be maximum prices in this country which can be exceeded for export, then if one has a ton of rolled or semi-rolled product one can sell in this country either at the maximum controlled price in the Schedule or, with the consent of the Minister—according to my honest interpretation—at a higher price, or to a specific and favoured customer at higher prices abroad. It seems to me to be a direct inducement to the Iron and Steel Board to sell steel abroad. We know that, taking one year with another, and one half-century with this or that half-century, the Steel Board has to make a profit, and that the steel stock interest has to be paid.
It seems, however, with the background to the steel industry today of shortage of steel supplies to every manufacturing and engineering firm, that the appearance of giving encouragement to the Board to sell abroad steel, and raw and semifinished steel, is fantastic. I hope that the Minister will give a more specific interpretation to this than that which naturally springs to mind on first reading, or studying for a few hours, this document. I trust that he will go into this matter of the supply of certain of these shortages, of which he is only too well aware—of flats, plates, angles and channels.
Only today I had down here, with friends from the Trent and the north of Staffordshire, a manufacturer who now is receiving only 32 per cent. of the iron and steel supplies which he received three or four months ago. There is no question

that at this time, with the necessity for re-armament and for increased export, and with various other problems facing the nation, steel supplies are vital. I hope that the Minister will give the House a proper explanation of this dangerous Order.

MOTIONS TO ANNUL ORDERS (PROCEDURE)

10.53 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
This Order can be prayed against until 11th April. Therefore it cannot be regarded as really urgent. But, even if there were other considerations, we need not reach a decision on it tonight. I think it is as well that, as on this Motion we cannot discuss the merits of the Order, we should have an opportunity of considering the way in which this House is being treated by the continual moving of these Prayers for no other reason than the physical exhaustion of hon. Members and Ministers of the Crown.
A speech was delivered last week in a village which I know very well, the village of Banstead. In that speech it was announced that harrying was to be carried on. I had an uncle who was a Master of Harriers for an area which covered the village of Banstead. Harriers are used to hound hares. The Opposition has chosen the wrong hound for the animal it is hunting. We are not hares. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rabbits."] Nor rabbits. We are an animal which, when attacked, has another trick besides that of running away.
I suggest to the House that it is time we considered where the reputation of this House will go if there is a much longer continuation of the process to which we have been subjected during the past few weeks. Let me say at once that I have no objection to all-night sittings and, in fact, during the last Parliament, and in others in which I have sat, my appearance at about 11.30 p.m. has frequently been received with groans because it has been regarded as an indication that we were going to sit until the early hours of the morning. My view is that, if we are going to have an all-night sitting, let us have it, and not break off at about three o'clock with the maximum amount


of inconvenience for hon. Members and the staff.
We are told that the Opposition wish to work according to rule, and that they rely upon the rules of the House to enable them to continue this pressure; but past majorities in this House have ensured that the majority, no matter how small, shall be able to get its way if it is determined to do so. Down to 1881, there was complete free speech in this House. The debate started, and could be continued so long as there were hon. Members willing to speak because the rules of the House were drawn up in the eighteenth century by two parties, whose members mainly consisted, as regards the back benchers, of fox-hunting squires; and it is from them that we get the name of "Whip" for those who see that people are in the pack when required.
Then, the Irish came, and they were neither fox-hunters nor squires—[An HON. MEMBER: "They were fox-hunters."] Perhaps, but not the type of fox-hunter who had come here. On 1st March, 1881, they had kept the House sitting for forty-one hours, and Mr. Speaker Brand entered the Chamber at nine o'clock in the morning and, without any Standing Order, announced that he was going to put the Question. He did so, in order to maintain the dignity of this House; and from that date, successive Oppositions, by pursuing the same tactics, have compelled a steady diminution in the free speech formerly accorded in this House, and we have had the Closure, the Kangaroo, and the Guillotine as subsequent processes.
His Majesty's Government are anxious to maintain the maximum amount of free speech in this House—[Interruption.] Well, during the past week we have seen how greatly that spirit has been appreciated by the Opposition. I have had hon. Members opposite coming to me and asking during the night, "When are we going to have the Closure?"

Mr. Erroll: No.

Mr. Ede: Never have such indignities been inflicted by an Opposition upon their own Members. The other night, eleven hon. Members on the other side were on their feet when the Deputy Chief Whip moved the Closure. They were so bored by one another that when

the question was put, they did not challenge it. They have shown a strange reluctance, after arguments which ought to have ended not in a Prayer but in a motion for impeachment, to go into the Lobby in support of their own Prayer. It was suggested to me by two ingenious friends of mine that the back benchers opposite had received orders from the Front Bench not to go into the Division lobby and, of course, any two tellers that the back benchers provided might have been severely censured. After all, if all the people who had been denouncing us had gone into the Lobby, they could not all have been disciplined, even by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Not even Lord Margesson would have attempted that.
This House has a very great and honourable tradition, which it is the duty of each succeeding generation to maintain in order to pass it on to its successors. This is the first time that on matters of administration it has been made perfectly plain, not merely by irresponsible back benchers like the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) but—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about 'The Red Flag'?"] If the hon. Member had been here on the day "The Red Flag" was sung, he would have known that it was not the first song that was sung on that day. The first choral effort came from the Opposition. Not merely by an irresponsible but ebullient back bencher like the Member for East Aberdeenshire but, on Saturday night by the Leader of the Opposition, this policy has been endorsed.
It is part of the duty of the House to keep a close check on the Executive. It is one of the fundamental duties not merely of the Opposition but of every Member of the House, to see that a close check in kept on the Executive. One of the ways of doing it is by the Prayer method. We are anxious that there should be no denial to the Opposition of this method of checking the Executive. But it is only reasonable to say that this method should be operated in circumstances which enable the House to perform its duty of checking effectively. That has not been done during the past fortnight or so.
We are exceedingly anxious that this method should be continued effectively and we are willing to enter into conversations with either the right hon. Gentle-


man who marshals the forces opposite or the platoon-sergeants who are put up each on his appropriate night to conduct the guerrilla warfare in order that the House may be kept out of bed. We do not think that is an effective way of the House discharging its duties, but we are willing to consider with those who have this sudden excess of piety the way in which they can pray at a time when they are more likely to be effectively heard both in this House and in the country.
One of the astonishing things is that the whole of their efforts have passed unrecorded as far as the details of their criticisms have been concerned, and we are most anxious that they should not be put at that disadvantage any longer. Many suggestions have been made to me by hon. Friends of mine sitting behind me as to the way in which this could be done, but I should prefer tonight not to deal with any of them, but to leave the field quite open for free discussion, so that the House can discharge its historic duty in circumstances that will enable it so to act as to reflect credit on itself and to make its criticisms effective.
I sincerely hope that this offer, which is made in all sincerity and genuineness, will be considered by hon. Gentlemen opposite. For let me tell them this, that the casualties in any war of attrition will not be on this side of the House. Too many of my hon. Friends have spent all their lives on one night shift a week for them to be deterred in any such contest as this. But I make this appeal, in the name of sound democratic government in one of the few places where that still flourishes, that we shall bring an end to the episodes which have done no credit to this House during the past few weeks, and that we shall seek to discharge our duties in a way that will ensure that the public interest shall be served and that this House shall retain its just reputation as a place for reasonable discussion.

11.8 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman has signified his assumption of office—the Leadership of the House—tonight in a somewhat unexpected way. I hope that he will not mind my saying that I thought the latter part of his speech not quite up to the earlier part, because he tended to lecture us all; but I know that in his earlier career that was his job in life; I hope that

he will not really find it his duty as Leader of the House, because he has shown, only last week, that he felt that he was in an impartial position, and that he really wanted to give us all guidance.
In so far as he was giving us guidance and suggesting that the present method of dealing with Prayers was not entirely satisfactory to his own party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to make this into a riot, they can, but I was proposing to reply to the right hon. Gentleman's offer that he made for the House to decide. What I was going to say was that he took this line, that the recent late night debates—which are not as unusual as all that: his memory must be fairly short if he thinks they are—had somehow broken the great and honourable traditions of this House. [Interruption.] But he said that never had such indignities been seen as when a number of hon. Members accepted a Closure Motion and did not themselves proceed to vote against it. Either the right hon. Gentleman's memory must be very short or else, during the Leadership of the House of the Foreign Secretary, he absented himself from the House more than I thought he did.
Certainly during the last Parliament we were constantly being twitted by the Lord President of the Council—in the days when Members opposite used to say that they were the masters now—that we were an incompetent Opposition because we did not sufficiently oppose. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are still in the same position."] Those who were in the House then will recollect many occasions on which taunts were thrown across the Table. Now, because there has been a certain amount of opposition, nothing very terrible, although one might think the world was coming to an end— [Interruption.] I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this is not a question of Privilege.
This is a question of how the House, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman's proposition, should deal with the question of Prayers because he and his friends object to the fact that a great number have been put down during the last few weeks. They have been put down because they raise matters which my hon. Friends thought should be raised. I may remind hon. Gentlemen of this fact, of which they may not be aware, that it has been for a very long


time our view that we have far too much delegated legislation. Not only over the last two or three years, but for a very long time, speeches have been constantly made on this point, and I do not think anyone has led the argument in the country about it more than my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll).
We have observed in recent weeks—hon. Gentlemen opposite may not—and we have perhaps wrongly connected it to some extent with the opposition to Orders by Prayers—that the numbers of Orders issued has gone down enormously. In the last marshalled list there were only 14 in the week, when in previous weeks there have been over 100. To that extent our opposition has borne fruit in the reduction in the number of Orders.
It may be, of course, an entire coincidence, but it is a strange coincidence that this should have happened at this particular moment. As a matter of fact, any right hon. Gentleman opposite would probably tell us if he got up, of his own experience if he is in a Department which is a rule and order-making Department. He would probably admit that much more care is being taken today in laying orders and rules than was done during the last Parliament when the Government and Ministers could rely on an enormous majority to steamroller whatever they wanted. These are the facts of last week's marshalled list.
I take what the right hon. Gentleman said in good faith. He has that touch of humour we all enjoy, but I think he is making a mountain out of a molehill in this matter when he says that these episodes have done no credit to this House, and he speaks of casualties in a war of attrition. I have long noticed the more excited the Socialist Party gets the more martial the metaphors. But the right hon. Gentleman puts forward a point of view when he says that after all it is perhaps not the best way of dealing with delegated legislation by having them laid and prayed against.
Well, it is not a very original thought even from his side of the House, because we have argued that for a very long time, and if the right hon. Gentleman would look through the discussions and the evidence of the last Select Committee on Procedure that sat at the beginning of the last Parliament, of which I was

a member, he will find that it was one of the matters which was discussed at very great length—how to treat delegated legislation, orders, rules, regulations, and the rest of it and put them under the ultimate control of Parliament. On that as an issue there is nothing between us.
However, the right hon. Gentleman comes down tonight—[Interruption]—at this hour, without any warning and suggests, and makes an offer, that the Government would be willing to consider with us somehow whether a better method could be found than the present one, which, of course, happens to be statutory. A good many issues would be raised. I say at this time of the night, and hon. Gentlemen jeer. But proposals of this sort are generally put through the usual channels, in order to make sure that the Leader of the Opposition and his intimate advisers can come to a reasoned decision.
I am certainly not in a position—and the right hon. Gentleman fully realises that—tonight to say "Yes" or "No" to that proposition. But I shall, of course, take the earliest opportunity of consulting the Leader of the Opposition. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is he?"] I have no doubt he is paired with the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] I would only like to say to the Prime Minister, who has now come in, that I am very glad that he is well enough, because this morning, when I read about his going into the nursing home—[Interruption.] Well, if the courtesies of the House are to be abandoned, I am quite prepared to go into Billingsgate language, if you will allow me. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are perfectly capable of that."] And so is the hon. Gentleman.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Bevin): As I represented Billingsgate for a good many years, I object to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman putting them on so low a level.

Captain Crookshank: I was merely saying that I did not expect the Prime Minister to be here, because I did not think he was very well. But the fact that he has come in, accompanied by all the senior members of the Cabinet, merely adds point to what I was saying before he came in. That is, if this important offer was going to be made to us, that we should have an investigation, as the right hon. Gentleman said, into a more seemly way of dealing with Prayers, it


would have been better if the proposal had been made through the usual channels in order to ensure that my right hon. Friend could have been able to deal with it at once. That is all.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the validity of what I am saying, and so does every hon. Gentleman behind him, but I undertake, of course, at once tomorrow, to consult my right hon. Friend in order that— [Interruption.] Of course, there has been a Cabinet meeting. I shall consult with him tomorrow and no doubt the opportunity will be taken of sending a considered reply, or of making one in the House, but there would be nothing surprising if we were to accept it. It has been fully investigated already within the last five years, though the Select Committee could not find an alternative method of dealing with it. Of course, others can try, and others may be more successful.
I reiterate in the presence of the Prime Minister and his senior colleagues that it is a pity this proposal was not put before us earlier so that it could be settled now. It cannot be settled now. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that I am not in a position, nor are any of my hon. Friends who happen to be here at the moment, to settle this now. The Motion we are discussing is that we should adjourn the debate. On behalf of my hon. Friends, I am prepared to accept that Motion. The only comment I can make is this: The reason why it is moved is that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends cannot take it.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: Until very late in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) I was not sure what was going to be his attitude. The Motion before the House is that the debate be now adjourned. This has been moved in order that the offer that has now been made by the Leader of the House on behalf of His Majesty's Government should be considered by the Opposition and other hon. Members of the House, including myself. We should accept that offer.
This House is far and away greater than any party in it, and certainly far and away greater than any individual who is a Member of it. It has a dignity and tradi-

tion which every Member of the House has a duty to maintain. Like the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have already said I regret very much that a large part of the powers of this House have been taken away—not under this Government: it began a long time ago. The House is no longer the initiator of a great deal of legislation, which has become delegated legislation, to which I naturally take stronger objection than anybody else in this House.
Furthermore, it is the right of every individual Member of this House, if he is so minded, to take exception to anything that the Executive does, to express his view and to take advantage of such measures as the Constitution allows him to oppose. But it has to be a real and true and sincere opposition. If advantage is taken of such powers as the House gives to individual members in opposing the acts of the Executive to stop the work of the House, and thereby to stop the administration of the Government of the country, then it is a misuse of these powers.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has rightly referred to the past. We of the Liberal Party have always placed in the forefront of our principles the right of free speech, and have insisted on that as being the main principles of the legislative assembly. It was left to us to bring in as a Liberal Government the Closure merely because the right of free speech was being misused so as to render this House incapable of carrying through its ordinary duties. Furthermore it was left to us to bring in the Kangaroo. I am anxious that this great institution shall be carried on and that it should fulfil its duties, especially at a time when democracies and democratic institutions throughout the world are threatened. I hope the Opposition will not only accept the motion moved by the Leader of the House, but will also accept the offer made by the Government so that we shall meet and discuss what is best for fulfilling our real duties and of maintaining the dignity of this House.

11.27 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: It is ten years ago since a number of hon. Members, of whom I was one, decided that the time had come to submit delegated legislation to critical examination, and a small group was formed, of which


I had the honour to be chairman until I lost my seat in 1945. As a result of the activities of that group a great many changes were introduced, such as the explanatory note which is characteristic of delegated legislation and the Select Committee. The Foreign Secretary will remember the many discussions I had with him informally which resulted in the setting up of that Select Committee. That group was formed of hon. Members who were supporters of the then Government, though at the same time they were critical supporters—there was nothing party about our activities. During that period, alone among hon. Gentlemen I have examined every document of this kind published—some 30,000 of them—and I claim to speak with some knowledge of this subject.
For many weeks past I have been perturbed about the steady rise in the cost of living, as shown by the numerous orders authorising increases in prices. It was as a result of that, that some of us decided, a fortnight or so ago, to table a number of orders all of which involved increases in prices. We were perfectly well aware of the facts, that increases in wages, freight rates and raw materials made these orders inevitable, but our purpose was to draw attention to the policy behind these orders. Accordingly we put down seven Prayers—we were all back benchers—dealing with this subject.

Mr. Blyton: Why did you not vote?

Sir H. Williams: I shall explain if the hon. Gentleman will listen. We put down those Prayers for Thursday, 8th March, because we thought the debate on the Army Estimates would not go on for a prolonged period. When we put them down the Prime Minister's Motion to suspend the 10 o'clock rule was not on the Order Paper. It was the action of the Prime Minister in suspending the 10 o'clock rule for that evening which made it—[Interruption.] —Hon. Members have only to read their Order Papers—which made it possible for the debate to go on for a much longer period, and the debate continued long after 10 o'clock. If hon. Members will read their HANSARD they will see that several hon. Members on the Government side spoke long after 10 o'clock that evening on the Army Estimates.
Now, the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) attached his name to all these Prayers, because that made it possible for him to prevent their adjournment to another evening. At half-past one in the morning the debate on the Army Estimates was still continuing; it had nothing to do with those who had put down the Prayers—[HON. MEMBERS: "After the last trains had gone."] The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) rose to his feet at 11.33, and hon. Members opposite were speaking long after the last trains had gone. At half-past one in the morning I approached the hon. and learned Member for Horn-church and suggested to him that it might be just as well if we postponed the seven Orders till another day; and I explained that in particular the one to which my name was attached, which raised a not unimportant constitutional issue, might be postponed.
The hon. and learned Member, who I think is now present, thought there was something in my argument. He approached his end of the usual channels and came back to me and said he thought something might be arranged. I then also approached his end of the usual channels, by which time it was nearly two in the morning, and made the proposal that the debate on these orders should be postponed. The answer I got was "It is already after half-past one"— which had nothing to do with these Prayers—and my proposal was rejected. We therefore had no option but to go on with them, otherwise we might have lost our opportunity.
At 13 minutes past two my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) moved the first of these Prayers. He did not get very sustained attention. At seven minutes past three I rose to move the one standing in my name, which related to furniture. It was on that one that I wished to raise an important constitutional issue. My speech would not have taken more than ten minutes, but I was in my place, up and down, for 52 minutes because not for ten seconds during that period did I receive free speech from hon. Members opposite.

Mr. George Thomas: How many times did Mr. Speaker call the hon. Gentleman to order?

Sir H. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough, as I have


been, to read that report carefully he will find that Mr. Speaker did not call me to order once, because being rather experienced I never was out of order.

Mr. Thomas: He described it as "nonsense."

Sir H. Williams: The reference to "nonsense" was made much later, I think it is rather unfortunate to drag that in, because every one of us regrets the cause of the absence of Mr. Speaker. It was as a sequel to that particular part of the discussion that on the following morning Mr. Speaker, quite properly, tendered an apology——

Mr. Thomas: Not to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir H. Williams: It was all part of that discussion. It arose before the next Order was considered. Mr. Speaker tendered an apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). I think it is most undesirable that hon. Members opposite should drag Mr. Speaker into this matter. If they take the trouble to read HANSARD they will find that at no stage was I ruled out of order. For 52 minutes I endeavoured to address this House and I could have said what I wanted to say in ten minutes. During those 52 minutes I was completely denied free speech in this House by hon. Members opposite, who are primarily responsible for the fact that people outside have been bringing this House into discredit.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Blyton: I should not have spoken had it not been for the history of a certain episode related just now by the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). I was sitting with the Deputy-Chief Whip that night when seven Prayers were introduced by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Croydon, East, wanted to withdraw them, but the Deputy-Chief Whip, quite rightly, said, "You have kept our people here until after two o'clock in the morning by your filibustering, and we will go through the business now, no matter how long it takes." Hon. Members opposite moved seven Prayers and did not vote on any one of them. I hope that, after having heard about the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) if we cannot make an

arrangement with hon. Members opposite we shall keep them up in the way in which they have been trying to keep us up.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I hope the House will soon be willing to come to a decision.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I want, if I can, to ascertain in a little more detail the meaning of the offer which the Government have made. Like most hon. Members on both sides of the House, I can think of many far more satisfactory ways of dealing with delegated legislation than that which the House has for some time been compelled to adopt. I am not quite clear, however, whether the discussion offered by the Leader of the House is a discussion on legislation, because, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has pointed out, the present procedure is governed by legislation.
Do the Government mean that they are prepared to bring in legislation, for example, for substituting a positive resolution for a negative resolution and that they are themselves prepared to find time for the Prayers that at present we are compelled to put down at this late hour? If so, the offer might have considerable attractions. But in his speech the right hon. Gentleman did not make it clear whether the discussions into which he was inviting the Opposition to enter were discussions about possible legislation to deal with the matter on some such lines.
The other question which I hope some Government Front Bench speaker will make clear is this—what is the effect on certain orders which have already been put down? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House quite naturally drew our attention to the fact that there would be other opportunities to discuss the particular Order which was the subject of the Prayer moved tonight. That, I take it, was in his view, quite rightly, a germane part of the argument. But it may be that some of those other orders which may be the subject of a Prayer are more urgent than that. What is going to be the position regarding debates on such Prayers during the period of these


discussions? If the right hon. Gentleman could make those two points clear, I think it would assist many of us to reach a conclusion on the merits of his present proposal.
There is only one other matter to which I wish to allude. Some hon. Members opposite seem to think that it is never justifiable to discuss anything unless there is a subsequent Division. That seems an extraordinary doctrine. Do they attach no value at all to debate? Is the Division Lobby the only thing in which they take the slightest interest? If that is not their meaning, their cries and jeers seem singularly ill-chosen. I hope that what the right hon. Gentleman said in moving the adjournment of this debate means that the Government are determined that, as far as in them lies, they will provide increased facilities in their own time for discussing delegated legislation. If that is the case, these discussions can lead to a good conclusion; but I do not believe that any opposition party—and I hope that this will command agreement among some, at any rate, of the Government's supporters—will agree to the House being deprived of the opportunity to discuss delegated legislation, even in the inconvenient hours which at present are necessary, unless some proper time is offered by the Government as an alternative.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do want to press the Leader of the House as to what his proposal means in respect of the orders which are at present notionally lying on the Table. He knows, of course, that they are not actually on the Table, but are in the box in the Library. The 40 days during which, under the Statutory Instruments Act, they can be debated, are running out. In the case of some of them, that period is running out tonight. If there are to be discussions of a possibly prolonged nature, and if in the interim the present means of debating them is to be removed from the House, a number of those orders will pass into a zone in which they cannot be debated while discussions are taking place.
The only way in which the right hon. Gentleman, can deal with them, as I understand it, is to introduce an amendment to the Statutory Instruments Act extending, in respect of those Instruments,

at any rate, the period of 40 days in which they can be debated by a period sufficient to cover the period of the discussions. I think that that is not an unreasonable proposition to put to the right hon. Gentleman, so that the House shall not lose control over a certain number of Statutory Instruments while discussions are proceeding with a view to working out a better means of procedure.
One other matter is, do the revised proposals which the right hon. Gentleman, has in mind, contemplate the possibility of dealing, at the same time, with one of the unfortunate characteristics of the present control? That is, will they enable a long Statutory Instrument which has, perhaps, one defect, to be debated in some other way than on a Motion to annul the Instrument? A good deal of time is inevitably wasted in this House because an hon. Member, who desires, quite genuinely, to deal with one particular aspect of a long Statutory Instrument has no other possible method of raising it than to put down a Motion to annul the whole Instrument.
If the right hon. Gentleman will deal with those two points, I shall be grateful; namely, the position of Instruments at present lying, in respect of which time is now running out; and secondly, the actual technique of dealing with long, detailed Instruments with perhaps one objectionable feature. If the right hon. Gentleman will do that, it would strike me that his proposal has much more merit than when he put it originally.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I should like to respond to the requests made by the last two hon. Members who have spoken. I am grateful to the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) for his reception of the suggestion I made. It is a speech the like of which I have come to expect from him with great anticipation and pleasure since we have been together in this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is in a minority."] This afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition was in a minority in his own party, but in view of the atmosphere which is prevailing, let us not try to raise the temperature.
I have taken into account the fact that the opportunity for debating some Statutory Instruments is running out. The two with which we are concerned tonight


do not present any question of urgency because the first is "alive" until 11th April, and the second to 25th April; but I shall take into consideration any other Statutory Instruments which may be time-expired—[Interruption.] I dislike using another military metaphor, but once a soldier, always a soldier, as I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows. I shall take them into account. I have set no limit—I was very careful not to do so—on the range of these discussions.
I am sincerely anxious that this House should have every opportunity for all critical examination of these Statutory Instruments, and I do not want to be regarded this evening as taking part in a "deputies' conference," drawing up a programme for our principals to discuss in the near future. I shall endeavour to see that this matter proceeds with all convenient speed, and to make quite certain that, in the meantime, the rights which hon. Members now enjoy will not be jeopardised; and, further, to hope that the offer which I make, with the full consent of all my collegaues, will be accepted by all hon. Members in the genuine spirit in which it is tendered.

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed upon Tuesday, 3rd April.

DISMISSED EMPLOYEE, GATESHEAD

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Royle.]

11.49 p.m.

Mr. J. R. Bevins: The matter which I wish to raise tonight is one which concerns only one individual, but it involves a matter of such principle that I think it only right to raise it on the Floor of the House. I shall be as concise as possible, and I propose not to argue the case but merely to give the House a recital of the facts as I understand them. The gentleman who forms the subject of this debate is a Mr. Thomas Kain, who lives in the Borough of Gateshead, and is a married man with two children. This man has been employed for a period of 18 years continuously with the Gateshead Corporation, latterly as a charge-man. He has also been a member of the Municipal and General Workers'

Union uninterruptedly for a period of 20 years.
I should like to emphasise his membership of the Municipal and General Workers' Union for so lengthy a period because it is, I think, relevant to this debate. In July, 1949, this man, who as I say is a charge-man, was detailed to remove a heap of pit refuse laying about somewhere around Gateshead. When he was asked to do this job, he referred to the local branch secretary of his trade union and put to him the suggestion that he might put it forward to his employer that he and his mates might be paid an incentive bonus for the job. According to Mr. Kain, he said:
In the first place I made inquiries from my Union secretary if they had any objection from a trade union point of view as against me trying to get an incentive bonus scheme introduced on this particular job, and the answer was, 'None, whatsoever.'
Mr. Kain then suggested that an incentive bonus should be paid by his employers, and I am given to understand that he was informed verbally by Gateshead Corporation, or by one- of their representatives, that the job would be paid on some such basis. The job proceeded and, I understand about 18,000 cubic yards of pit refuse was shifted by six men in a period of about 10 weeks, which I believe, according to my friends who know something about this, is very good going.
On completion of the work, Mr. Kain was told by the representative of the Gateshead Corporation that they would not agree to the payment of any bonus, whereupon Mr. Kain appealed to the local branch secretary of his trade union and pleaded with him that he should intervene with his employers and try to get some satisfaction for him. The local branch secretary of his union refused to intervene and Mr. Kain, in order to show his resentment, decided to refrain from paying his trade union subscriptions. I do not say the immediate sequel, but the sequel to that was that shortly afterwards Kain received a letter from the Gateshead Corporation which said:
In consequence of your not being a member of your trade union, I am instructed that, in accordance with the Council's decision, you are to terminate your employment with the Corporation seven days from the above date.
Mr. Kain then applied for unemployment pay and—this is perhaps one of


the most astounding features of the case—he was refused unemployment pay on the grounds that he had voluntarily left his employment. On 27th November, 1950, the Gateshead Unemployment Tribunal dismissed his appeal on the same grounds that he had voluntarily left his employment, but added that
Kain was placed in a position of unusual difficulty by the failure of the branch secretary to supply him with the information to which he was entitled,
which, I assume, is a reference to the failure of the trade union branch secretary to take up the question of incentive bonus with the Gateshead Corporation. Later still, on 14th February of this year, the National Insurance Commissioner decided to allow Mr. Kain's appeal to unemployment pay and if the House will allow me, I should like to read just two extracts from the final decision of the Tribunal. The first is:
The reason given by the present claimant for his failure to pay his subscription is that he could get no satisfaction from the branch secretary in response to his appeal that the union should take up the question of his incentive scheme with his employers.
I read that because those are not my words but the words of the National Insurance Commissioner. The second is:
A claimant cannot be regarded as voluntarily leaving his employment without just cause if he is discharged for refusing to pay his union subscription because he has a genuine dispute with his trades union.
All that I need to add is that from that day to this Mr. Kain has not been reinstated by his former employers, Gateshead Corporation.
I do not want at this late hour to argue the merits or the demerits of this dispute as between Mr. Kain and his trade union or between Mr. Kain and the Gateshead Corporation, because candidly I do not think the merits of the dispute, in that sense, are basically important to our discussion. What I think is important is that here is a man who has been employed by one local authority for something like 20 years and has been a loyal member of the trade union for a period of 18 years, who is sacked from his employment because he has a genuine dispute with his union and refrains, in consequence, from paying his trade union subscription. That seems to me to be a complete travesty of British justice.
I put it no higher than that, and I do not want to introduce any heat into this small debate at this hour of the night; but I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that here is a British citizen who has not had justice from those who have employed him, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to give serious thought to some form of intervention with the Gateshead Corporation, or, at least, to the making of some representations to that local authority, in order to close what is a not very happy chapter in this man's life.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. J. Hall: Mr. Kain is a constituent of mine. Therefore, I was very much interested when I heard that the hon. Member for Toxteth (Mr. Bevins) was to bring this matter before the House tonight. I may say that Mr. Kain has not made any representations to me. Naturally, I should have expected that a constituent of mine who was in difficulty and wished the matter to be raised in this House would have brought the matter before his Member; but I am appreciative of the fact that the hon. Member opposite gave me notice that he would raise this matter in the House.
When the case was first mentioned, I noticed that the hon. Member had a Question on the Order Paper in regard to the unemployment benefit. That matter has been satisfactorily put right to Mr. Kain's benefit. But I can assure the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that there is no question of political controversy so far as this matter is concerned. There has been no desire inside the council chamber to question the action of the Council in dispensing with this man's services, nor has there been any question in the local Press on the matter.
For a long time the Gateshead Council has accepted the position of allowing any trade union or professional organisation to bring up questions relating to membership in order to get them settled on a harmonious basis. In the main, the relations between the Council and the employees have been of a very cordial nature. It is true that Mr. Kain has had a long service with the Council, that he was a good worker, but he was a charge-hand who on three occasions tried to work in an ordinary capacity, and consequently there was a certain amount of


feeling, possibly, among the ordinary members of the trade union. That is the background of this particular dispute.
Having heard of the dispute I took particular pains to ascertain the facts. They are very simple. The hon. Gentleman has said that Kain was employed on a certain job where he demanded payment by results. He was unable to get the Council to assent to his request. It is a very difficult matter for the Council to measure work of this nature, and it would mean the employment of additional staff to do so. He went to the union, and whether we like it or not—and I personally do not like piece-work payments in local government service—he was told by the trade union that they' could not move in the matter because it was not Joint Industrial Council policy. Consequently, he felt aggrieved with the union, and withheld his contributions. This was carried on for a long time, and the matter was then raised with the Council by the trade union who asked that the man should resume his membership or leave the service of the Council.
There is complete harmony between the trade union, the men and the Council. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman opposite that it is quite possible that interference of this kind by the Government or anyone else would destroy that harmony. Therefore, we ought not to interfere too much with local government which is carrying on a great work. It is good for local government administration that things of this nature should be settled by local government itself, and that when a council does not interfere with trade union matters unless requested to do so by the trade union or the professional organisation, that council should not be interfered with by a Government Department or by anyone else.

12.4 a.m.

Miss Irene Ward: I do not want to enter the discussion which has taken place between the two hon. Gentlemen, but I want to say one thing to the hon. Gentleman who represents the Ministry on this occasion. I noticed with considerable regret and apprehension that, immediately, unemployment benefit was discontinued by the local labour exchange in this case. I take a very poor view of that decision. It seems to me that it is no part of our administration,

or should not be, to adjudicate on matters of this kind, and indeed the final decision proves that my own thoughts are right in this matter.
First of all, I ask that the whole decision of the National Insurance Commissioner should be entered on the records of the House, and I ask for an undertaking that in the future the Department will consider the interests of the applicant who has paid his full insurance contributions to the scheme; and that if there is to be any appeal on this matter, it should be an appeal against the Department for granting unemployment benefit. I do not think that in a matter of dispute it is for the Department to take sides against a man who is a contributor to the scheme. I hope for an assurance that in future this apparent policy of the Ministry will be reversed.

12.6 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren): If I may deal with the points raised by the hon. Lady, let me say, first, that I have nothing at all to do with the Ministry of National Insurance, and if she wants assurances from the Ministry it is for her to go to the Minister concerned; but I would recommend that before she takes a poor view of anything, she might at least try to find out the facts; and the facts are not quite in accord with the general attitude she has taken this evening.
We are speaking of the Borough of Gateshead, and perhaps I may take this opportunity of saying that from my Ministry's point of view, and from the point of view of this House, we are sorry to have learned today that the Mayor of Gateshead passed away during the night. He was a first-class fellow who had taken his full share in local government. I take particular pride in this fact, because he was a fellow railwayman and, like so many railwaymen, he had given a great deal of time to local government. We express our regret to his relatives and to Gateshead at the passing of a very worthy mayor.
Turning to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, I would point out that local government is local government, and it has been a charge levelled against His Majesty's Government, and perhaps even previous Governments, that more and more the centre tends to take away


powers from the local authority. Yet here we have folk coming and asking us to supersede an action of people elected in a locality. After all, here we have the Member for the Division, who lives there, knows the people, and knows all the facts locally; and then someone comes and asks those sitting in chairs at Whitehall to intervene in what is obviously some local problem. One would estimate that those in the locality who know all the facts would be better able to settle it. However, on a general basis it has been the practice, so far as local government is concerned—except for one or two statutory officers, such as the sanitary inspector and the medical officer of health, to whom even Tory Governments had to give the protection of the State, because local landlords were likely to use their powers to victimise them and prevent them from doing their jobs properly——

Sir William Darling: Do landlords interfere with public assistance officers?

Mr. Lindgren: We are talking about England, not Scotland. The Minister has no power to intervene at all unless he has reason to believe that the local authority is, by its action in regard to certain officers not able to perform its functions. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman who raised this point would suggest that the action of choosing a builder's labourer or a charge-hand, in so far as a particular local authority is concerned, is likely to upset the standard of social service provided by the borough in that area. The Minister has no power to intervene, but even if he had the power to intervene, I think these matters of industrial discipline are surely much better dealt with locally, in conjunction with the man's union, than by a Minister in Whitehall.

Mr. Bevins: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that, even if he were convinced that a local authority had abused their power in relation to an individual, he would not be prepared to do anything about it?

Mr. Lindgren: I am suggesting that if there was such an abuse, a demand for its correction is much more likely to arise spontaneously in the area in which it took place, and it is much better to deal

with the matter in the area than from an office in Whitehall. Surely the local authority, knowing the people concerned and the circumstances surrounding the case, are much more able to judge the rights of a case than even the hon. Gentleman who, in all good faith, has made the statement to which we have just listened. The Minister has no power to intervene, unless he has reason to believe that by their action the local authority are endangering the performance of their statutory obligations in their area. I am afraid I must leave the matter there. It must be left to those in the locality, who are acting on behalf of the gentleman concerned, to deal with the case as they consider best.

Mr. Bevins: I am not ungrateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I realise the extent of his powers under the Local Government Act, 1948, but surely if he believes, as he must do, that there is even a possibility of injustice in this case, there is nothing to prevent his right hon. Friend from informally talking the thing over with the Gateshead authority, whatever the provisions of the Local Government Act are.

Mr. Lindgren: From the chronological series of events set out by the hon. Gentleman, there seems to me to be more in this than meets the eye. A man who has been in a job for 18 years and a member of his union for 20 years does not suddenly walk out——

Mr. Bevins: He was sacked.

Mr. Lindgren: —without weighing the consequences. He "de-moted" himself a number of times. There seems to be more in this case than appears in the bare facts. There is the temperament of the individual. I do not know him. He might be one of those individuals who every now and again tells his foreman, or whoever is above him, what he can do. They have been known in industry, particularly in this type of work. We do not know all the facts. Surely the place to deal with any abuse is in the area itself. I have sufficient faith in the ordinary men and women in any employment to say that if they felt that one of their comrades was being dealt with harshly, they would take steps to deal with the matter.

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Gentleman is saying that if the colleagues, or comrades,


of the gentleman thought he was having a raw deal, they themselves would probably do something about it. If that were the case, how does he explain that this gentleman was denied unemployment benefit by the appeal tribunal at Gateshead and not a single voice was raised either by the hon. Gentleman's friend sitting behind him or by anybody else in Gateshead in support of his plea?

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman has given me my case. I do not want to deal with it, because it is not my Ministerial responsibility but that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of? National Insurance.

Miss Irene Ward: Why is she not here?

Mr. Lindgren: Because the matter was directed to my Department.

Miss Ward: She might come and listen.

Mr. Lindgren: If the hon. lady would listen, I might be able to explain the matter to her. The rejection of this appeal by the Ministry of National Insurance is to me prima facie evidence that there is something fishy in it. An insurance officer

is skilled in sorting out cases and in summing up an individual and all the circumstances, and he is not often very far wrong. If this case went through the local officer to the tribunal and then on to the Ministry for a final decision, that shows to me that at least there was an arguable case for the decision first taken, and that, perhaps, is the answer to the hon. Gentleman which I, myself, do not know. With the experience I have had of local government and industrial work, I would say that if there was an injustice, there would be an attempt made by the people in the area to see that justice be done. Even if the man had been unfairly treated by his trade union, action would be taken to call attention to it. That has not been done, as the hon. Gentleman has admitted. Therefore, I assume there is much more in the case than his evidence goes to show: and I am afraid I must leave it there.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.